Suliman Khan received his Ph.D. from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and is currently working as a postdoctoral fellow at the second affiliated hospital of Zhengzhou University. He has published more than 25 and 5 articles on SARS-CoV-2 in prestigious journals, including Clinical microbiology and infection (CMI) and Journal of clinical microbiology (ASM-JCM) first and accordingly. Of the 249 articles/studies included, 147 (59.0%) were from China. The type of article/study varied considerably, which we roughly divided into 11 types (Table 1). Of these, guidelines/guidelines and consensus statements were the most prevalent (n = 56; 22.5%). These analyses were carried out in Stata/SE 16.1. Replication codes are available on github.com/jomuzhi/ukcovidunderstandingsociety. The research topics in different types of articles/studies had both similarities and differences. Basic research has mainly focused on studying the origin and reservoirs of the new virus, while epidemiological studies have focused mainly on its transmissibility.
Reviews and reports provided more general information about the virus and the outbreak, while guidelines included recommendations for prevention and control. Cumulative number of articles/studies related to coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) included in the scoping review, January 10 to February 6, 2020 (n=249) Our scoping review shows that while the number of covid-19 articles as of February 6 steadily increased, there were still significant gaps in several types of studies and research areas. We found that some types of studies, particularly randomised controlled trials and cohort trials, did not exist before 6 February. According to a preliminary search of the Cochrane Network database up to 10 April 2020, the number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 8) and observational studies (n = 42) remain low [131]. Below, we first review the latest work on the impact of COVID-19 and COVID-induced measures on people`s lives, focusing on three dimensions of social inequality: gender, race/ethnicity, and education. We then describe the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdown measures in the UK from March 2020 to April 2021. Next, we present the data and its longitudinal design, which allows us to compare information from the same people before the onset of this pandemic and at different times in the past year. Finally, we will report on the results of the fixed-effect regression analyses and discuss our findings. Muhammad Adnan Shereen is a PhD student at Wuhan University and works on Zika virus and coronavirus in the areas of pathogenesis, drug screening and molecular mechanisms. He is the author of 8 articles published in journals with an impact factor of more than 5, including the recently adopted work in Nature microbiology. We included 249 articles in this framing review. More than half (59.0%) were carried out in China.
Guidelines/guidelines and consensus statements (n = 56; 22.5%) were the most common. Most (n = 192; 77.1%) articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, 35 (14.1%) on preprint servers and 22 (8.8%) published online. Ten genetic studies (4.0%) focused on the origin of SARS-CoV-2, while the subjects of the molecular studies varied. Nine of the 22 epidemiological studies focused on estimating the baseline reproduction number of COVID-19 (R0) infection. Of all the guidelines identified (n = 35), only ten met the strict principles of evidence-based practice. The number of articles published per day increased rapidly until the end of January. We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE on February 27, 2020 via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data and China Biology Medicine (CBM) with the terms “COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “2019 novel coronavirus” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “Wuhan coronavirus” OR “novel coronavirus” OR “Wuhan seafood market pneumonia virus” OR “Wuhan virus”. published between December 1, 2019 and February 6, 2020 (see Supplement S1 for more details on search strategies). Due to possible delays in indexing databases, we also searched some journals for infectious diseases (Supplementary Table S1). We also searched Google Scholar; the official websites of WHO (www.who.int/), CDC (www.cdc.gov/), ECDC (www.ecdc.europa.eu/en), Public Health England (PHE) (www.gov.uk/government/organisations/public-health-england); certain preprint servers, including BioRxiv (www.biorxiv.org/), ChemRxiv (chemrxiv.org/), medRxiv (www.medrxiv.org/) and SSRN (www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/); and reference lists of identified articles to find additional study reports. Figure 2 shows the cumulative number of articles published daily between January 10, 2020 and February 6, 2020.
As of February 6, 2020, the number of articles on COVID-19 has increased steadily. Of the 192 articles published in peer-reviewed journals, the highest number of journal publications in a single day was recorded on 30 January with 24 articles (12.5%). For the 35 preprints, the number of data published per day increased steadily from January 19, 2020 to February 6, 2020. Below is a selection of databases and journals that help researchers find scientific papers on COVID-19 (novel coronavirus 2019). We identified 1,511 records, of which 280 were excluded as duplicates. A selection of titles and abstracts was made for the remaining 1,231 articles, of which 989 were excluded because they had nothing to do with COVID-19. For two articles, we were unable to access the full text after contacting the authors. We have retrieved the full texts of the remaining 242 articles. After further analysis and a further search for articles published or published between 31 January 2020 and 6 February 2020, we identified 42 additional articles and a total of 249 articles were included in the review (Figure 1).
This scope review shows the state of the literature published or published online as of February 6, 2020, related to COVID-19. The number of articles in this area has continued to increase since the outbreak. However, the types of studies lacked diversity, especially clinical trials. More clinical research is needed, but in the context of a rapidly developing global pandemic, we encourage researchers to continually review the latest literature, consider the latest available evidence and avoid duplication, and improve evidence for the development of clinical practice and public health policy guidelines. The different types of articles/studies focused on different topics. Basic research could be roughly divided into two categories: 21 genetic studies and 12 molecular biology studies. Ten genetic studies traced the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and attempted to determine the possible reservoir of the virus. Of these, most have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 evolved from a Bat-CoV, namely bat-SL-CoVZC45, bat-SL-CoVZXC21, bat-SL-CoVZX45 and bat-CoV-RaTG13 as potential candidates [18-26]. Ji et al. [18], however, found that snakes are the most likely reservoir for SARS-CoV-2, while Guo et al. [26] suggested that mink could be a reservoir of candidates.
Of the molecular studies, five [27-31] showed that the key receptor for SARS-CoV-2 is angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is strongly expressed in type II pulmonary alveolar cells (AT2) [27], positive cholangiocytes [29], upper esophagus, layered epithelial cells, and absorbent enterocytes of the ileum and large intestine [30]. Other studies included an assessment of the cross-reactivity of anti-SARS-CoV antibodies with the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein [32] and the major SARS-CoV-2 proteases [33,34]. The main topic of epidemiological studies was estimating the transmissibility of COVID-19. The baseline reproduction number (R0) value varied from study to study [35-43], but all felt it was greater than one, indicating the potential for sustained human-to-human transmission. According to the nine articles [35-43], R0 is between 2.2 and 3.9. Some studies have shown that the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 is comparable to [37,44] or even greater than [39] than SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). In addition, studies have focused on the disease burden associated with COVID-19 [45] and global trends in the spread of the disease [46,47]. The types of articles/studies published each day are shown in Figure 3. The daily number of guidelines peaked between January 29 and February 3, while the number of notices published has shown an upward trend since January 29, 2020. Only one systematic review was identified [17].
We found no randomised controlled trials or cohort studies. Browse available articles from APA journals on COVID-19. .