Indian contribution toward biomedical research and development in COVID-19: A systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kaur H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8216129 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan-Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Indian contribution toward biomedical research and development in COVID-19: A systematic review.
Kaur Hardeep H Kaur Manpreet M Bhattacharyya Anusuya A Prajapat Manisha M Thota Prasad P Sarma Phulen P Kumar Subodh S Kaur Gurjeet G Sharma Saurabh S Prakash Ajay A Saifuddin P K PK Medhi Bikash B
Indian journal of pharmacology 20210101 1
COVID-19 pandemic led to an unprecedented collaborative effort among industry, academia, regulatory bodies, and governments with huge financial investments. Scientists and researchers from India also left no stone unturned to find therapeutic and preventive measures against COVID-19. Indian pharmaceutical companies are one of the leading manufacturers of vaccine in the world, are utilizing its capacity to its maximum, and are one among the forerunners in vaccine research against COVID-19 across ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Scientists worldwide struggle to identify suitable animal models to study SARS-CoV-2 infections. Interspecies-related differences, such as host specificity, divergent immune responses, or the unavailability of species-specific reagents hamper the research. Human-based models, such as micro-engineered multi-organs-on-chip, may hold the solution.
| S-EPMC7967778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEthical discourse in the scientific community facilitates the humane conduct of research. The urgent response to COVID-19 has rapidly generated a large body of literature to help policymakers and physicians address novel pandemic challenges. Plastic surgeons, in particular, have to manage the postponement of elective procedures and safely provide care for non-COVID-19 patients. Although COVID-19 research may provide guidance on these challenges, the extent to which ethical discussions are present in these publications remains unknown.MethodsArticles were identified systematically by searching the PubMed, Embase, Central, and Scopus databases using search terms related to ethics and COVID-19. The search included articles published during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. The following data were extracted: presence of an ethical discussion, date of publication, topic of ethical discussion, and scientific discipline of the article.ResultsOne thousand seven hundred fifty-three articles were included, of which seven were related to plastic surgery. The ethical principle with the greatest representation was nonmaleficence, whereas autonomy had the least representation. Equity and access to care was the most common topic of ethical discussion; the mental health effects of COVID-19 were the least common. The principle of justice had the greatest variation in representation.ConclusionsIn a systematic review of COVID-19-related articles that were published during the first 9 months of the pandemic, the ethical principles of autonomy and justice are neglected in ethical discussions. As ethical dilemmas related to COVID-19 remain prevalent in plastic surgery, attention to ethical discourse should remain a top priority for leaders in the field.
| S-EPMC9026636 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing need to evaluate the production and impact of medical research produced by institutions. Many indicators exist, yet we do not have enough information about their relevance. The objective of this systematic review was (1) to identify all the indicators that could be used to measure the output and outcome of medical research carried out in institutions and (2) enlist their methodology, use, positive and negative points.MethodologyWe have searched 3 databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science) using the following keywords: [Research outcome* OR research output* OR bibliometric* OR scientometric* OR scientific production] AND [indicator* OR index* OR evaluation OR metrics]. We included articles presenting, discussing or evaluating indicators measuring the scientific production of an institution. The search was conducted by two independent authors using a standardised data extraction form. For each indicator we extracted its definition, calculation, its rationale and its positive and negative points. In order to reduce bias, data extraction and analysis was performed by two independent authors.FindingsWe included 76 articles. A total of 57 indicators were identified. We have classified those indicators into 6 categories: 9 indicators of research activity, 24 indicators of scientific production and impact, 5 indicators of collaboration, 7 indicators of industrial production, 4 indicators of dissemination, 8 indicators of health service impact. The most widely discussed and described is the h-index with 31 articles discussing it.DiscussionThe majority of indicators found are bibliometric indicators of scientific production and impact. Several indicators have been developed to improve the h-index. This indicator has also inspired the creation of two indicators to measure industrial production and collaboration. Several articles propose indicators measuring research impact without detailing a methodology for calculating them. Many bibliometric indicators identified have been created but have not been used or further discussed.
| S-EPMC4383328 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronaviruses (CoV) cause respiratory and intestinal infections. We conducted this bibliometric analysis and systematical review to explore the CoV-related research trends from before COVID-19. We systematically searched the Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science (WOS) databases for published bibliometric analyses of CoV from database inception to January 24, 2021. The WOS Collection was searched from inception to January 31, 2020, to acquire the CoV-related publications before COVID-19. One-Way ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple-comparison tests were used to compare differences. Visualization mapping and keyword cluster graphs were made to illustrate the research topics and hotpots. We included 14,141 CoV-related publications for the bibliometric analysis and 16 (12 articles) CoV-related bibliometric analyses for the systematic review. Both the systematic review and bibliometric analysis showed (1) the number of publications showed two steep upward trajectories in 2003-2004 and in 2012-2014; (2) the research hotpots mainly focused on the mechanism, pathology, epidemiology, clinical diagnosis, and treatment of the coronavirus in MERS-CoV and SARS-Cov; (3) the USA, and China; the University of Hong Kong; and Yuen KY, came from the University of Hong Kong contributed most; (4) the Journal of Virology had the largest number of CoV related studies. More studies should focus on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in the future.
| S-EPMC8635101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: This study examined the gender composition of career development award applicants and grant review panels during the pandemic compared with that beforehand. Methods: Data were collected from 14 Health Research Alliance (HRA) organizations, which fund biomedical research and training. HRA members provided the gender of grant applicants and grant reviewers during the pandemic (April 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021) and prepandemic (April 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020). The signed-rank test compared medians and the chi square test compared the overall gender distribution. Results: The total number of applicants was similar during the pandemic (N = 3,724) and prepandemic (N = 3,882) periods, as was the percentage of women applicants (45.2% pandemic vs. 44.9% prepandemic, p = 0.78). The total number of men and women grant reviewers declined during the pandemic (N = 856) compared with that pre-pandemic (N = 1,689); this decrease was driven by a change for the largest funder. Also driven by changes for this one funder, the percentage of total grant reviewers who were women increased significantly during the pandemic (45.9%) compared with that during prepandemic (38.8%; p = 0.001), but the median percentage of women grant reviewers across organizations remained similar during the pandemic (43.6%) and prepandemic periods (38.2%; p = 0.53). Conclusions: In a sample of research organizations, the gender composition of grant applicants and grant review panels remained similar, except for the review panel composition for one large funder. Given evidence from other studies that have revealed gender differences in other career and life experiences of scientists during the pandemic, ongoing evaluation of women's representation in grant submission and review mechanisms is essential.
| S-EPMC10329151 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 period posed great challenges to global education systems, especially teachers even after lock-down. Teachers' wellbeing has been a concern because they have to balance health with work. Since the role of teachers is pivotal in education, there is increased in research on their wellbeing status.MethodThe current systematic review aims to analyze the distribution of research on teacher wellbeing from 2020 to mid-February 2024 using a quantitative method. It focuses on yearly distribution of studies, the research methods adopted by scholars, and the group of teachers investigated over the period. The PRISMA guidelines were followed, and 103 empirical studies were selected for the analysis.ResultsThe review shows notable increase in research, particularly in 2022 and 2023, representing 37.9% and 35.9% of studies, respectively. This suggests a growing interest in teacher wellbeing among educational researchers. The findings also indicate that researchers mostly adopted quantitative methods in form of surveys (79.6%) for studies on teacher wellbeing. However, there has been an increase in qualitative and mixed-methods research recently, with qualitative research accounting for 9.7% and mixed-method research accounting for 10.7%. The review also identified a greater focus on teachers in general than on specific group of teachers.
| S-EPMC11414468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe amount of information for clinicians and clinical researchers is growing exponentially. Text summarization reduces information as an attempt to enable users to find and understand relevant source texts more quickly and effortlessly. In recent years, substantial research has been conducted to develop and evaluate various summarization techniques in the biomedical domain. The goal of this study was to systematically review recent published research on summarization of textual documents in the biomedical domain.Materials and methodsMEDLINE (2000 to October 2013), IEEE Digital Library, and the ACM digital library were searched. Investigators independently screened and abstracted studies that examined text summarization techniques in the biomedical domain. Information is derived from selected articles on five dimensions: input, purpose, output, method and evaluation.ResultsOf 10,786 studies retrieved, 34 (0.3%) met the inclusion criteria. Natural language processing (17; 50%) and a hybrid technique comprising of statistical, Natural language processing and machine learning (15; 44%) were the most common summarization approaches. Most studies (28; 82%) conducted an intrinsic evaluation.DiscussionThis is the first systematic review of text summarization in the biomedical domain. The study identified research gaps and provides recommendations for guiding future research on biomedical text summarization.ConclusionRecent research has focused on a hybrid technique comprising statistical, language processing and machine learning techniques. Further research is needed on the application and evaluation of text summarization in real research or patient care settings.
| S-EPMC4261035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Digitization of a health record changes its accessibility. An electronic health record (EHR) can be accessed by multiple authorized users. Health information from EHRs contributes to learning healthcare systems' development. The objective of this systematic review is to answer a question: What are ethical issues concerning research using EHRs in the literature? We searched Medline Ovid, Embase and Scopus for publications concerning ethical issues of research use of EHRs. We employed the constant comparative method to retrieve common ethical themes. We descriptively summarized empirical studies. The study reveals the breadth, depth, and complexity of ethical problems associated with research use of EHRs. The central ethical question that emerges from the review is how to manage access to EHRs. Managing accessibility consists of interconnected and overlapping issues: streamlining research access to EHRs, minimizing risk, engaging and educating patients, as well as ensuring trustworthy governance of EHR data. Most of the ethical problems concerning EHR-based research arise from rapid cultural change. The framing of concepts of privacy, as well as individual and public dimensions of beneficence, are changing. We are currently living in the middle of this transition period. Human emotions and mental habits, as well as laws, are lagging behind technological developments. In the medical tradition, individual patient's health has always been in the center. Transformation of healthcare care, its digitalization, seems to have some impacts on our perspective of health care ethics, research ethics and public health ethics.
| S-EPMC8214390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Sex and gender are believed to influence vaccine response. Yet, the relationship between sex and gender and COVID-19 vaccine efficacy is poorly understood and remains under-investigated. Methods We conducted a systematic review to determine whether and to what extent post-approval COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies report sex-disaggregated VE data. We searched four publication and pre-publication databases and additional grey literature sources for relevant published/preprint studies released between 1 January 2020 and 1 October 2021 (i.e., pre-Omicron era). We included observational studies providing VE estimates for one or more licensed/approved COVID-19 vaccines and including both males and females. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk-of-bias through a modified version of Cochrane’s ROBINS-I tool. A qualitative data synthesis was performed. Results Here we show that, among 240 eligible publications, 68 (28.3%) do not report the sex distribution among participants. Only 21/240 (8.8%) studies provide sex-disaggregated VE estimates, and high between-study heterogeneity regarding design, target population, outcomes, and vaccine type/timing prevent the assessment of sex in determining COVID-19 VE across studies. Conclusions Our findings indicate that few COVID-19 vaccine research publications account for sex. Improved adherence to recommended reporting guidelines will ensure that the evidence generated can be used to better understand the relationship between sex and gender and VE. Plain Language Summary The level of protection that vaccines provide against COVID-19 might depend on a person’s sex or gender. However, sex and gender are not always reported in studies on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. Here, we systematically reviewed the literature on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and looked at whether the studies we found separated out their data on vaccine effectiveness by participants’ sex. Out of the 240 publications we identified, 68 (28.3%) did not report the sex of the participants in their study, and only 21 studies (8.8%) reported vaccine effectiveness data separated by sex. These results show that a substantial proportion of COVID-19 vaccine research publications do not account for sex. Efforts should be made by researchers to study and report the relationship between sex and vaccine effectiveness, to help to optimise vaccination strategies so that all people are adequately protected. Sulis et al. perform a systematic review to investigate to what extent post-approval COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness studies report sex-disaggregated data. They identified 240 relevant publications, of which only a small percentage (8.8%) provided sex-disaggregated effectiveness estimates.
| S-EPMC10196298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This review is proposed to summarize the updates on COVID-19 and ophthalmology along with the bibliometric features of articles that have been published since the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak. The databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched using "Coronavirus," "COVID-19," "SARS-CoV-2," "pandemic," "ophthalmology," "ophthalmic," and "eye" keywords. All published articles except commentaries, errata, and corrigenda up to April 2021 were included. Titles and abstracts were screened, and ophthalmology-focused articles were collected. The bibliographic information of the articles, such as the name and country of the first author, type of study, date of publication, language, and journal name, were extracted. Included studies were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist. After systematic searching, 2,669 distinct articles were screened by title/abstract, and 1,174 ophthalmology-focused articles were selected to be reviewed. Ophthalmology-focused publications accounted for less than 0.5 percent of the total COVID-19-related articles. Most of the articles were published in the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, and the main publication type was "original article." Almost 88% of the publications were in English. There was a decline in the publication rate during the initial months of 2021 compared with the middle and last months of 2020. Most of the publications were affiliated with the United States of America. However, Singapore and the United Kingdom were the countries with the highest number of publications after population adjustment. Furthermore, a comprehensive review on major topics including SARS-CoV-2 ocular tropism, ophthalmic manifestations, ocular complications due to COVID-19 treatment strategies, the pandemic effect on ophthalmology care and operations, myopia progression during the pandemic, and telemedicine was conducted.
| S-EPMC9133895 | biostudies-literature