Dataset Information

COVID-19 and the environment: A critical review and research agenda.

ABSTRACT: The current Coronavirus infection (COVID-19) outbreak has had a substantial impact on many aspects of general life. Although a number of studies have been published on the topic already, there has not been a critical review of studies on the impacts of COVID-19 by and on environmental factors. The current study fills this gap by presenting a critical analysis of 57 studies on the nexus between COVID-19 and the environment, published in nine journals up to May 2020. Majority of the studies in our sample are published in Science of the Total Environment (74%), and studies used mostly descriptive statistics and regression as research methods. We identified four underlying research clusters based on a systematic content analysis of the studies. The clusters are: (1) COVID-19 and environmental degradation, (2) COVID-19 and air pollution, (3) COVID-19 and climate/metrological factors and (4) COVID-19 and temperature. Besides a critical analysis of the studies in each cluster, we propose research questions to guide future research on the relationship between COVID-19 and the environment.

SUBMITTER: Shakil MH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7366970 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

COVID-19 and the environment: A critical review and research agenda.

Shakil Mohammad Hassan MH Munim Ziaul Haque ZH Tasnia Mashiyat M Sarowar Shahin S

The Science of the total environment 20200717

The current Coronavirus infection (COVID-19) outbreak has had a substantial impact on many aspects of general life. Although a number of studies have been published on the topic already, there has not been a critical review of studies on the impacts of COVID-19 by and on environmental factors. The current study fills this gap by presenting a critical analysis of 57 studies on the nexus between COVID-19 and the environment, published in nine journals up to May 2020. Majority of the studies in our ...[more]

PMID: 32711074

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSince the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, a large number of COVID-19-related papers have been published. However, concerns about the risk of expedited science have been raised. We aimed at reviewing and categorizing COVID-19-related medical research and to critically appraise peer-reviewed original articles.MethodsThe data sources were Pubmed, Cochrane COVID-19 register study, arXiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv, from 01/11/2019 to 01/05/2020. Peer-reviewed and preprints publications related to COVID-19 were included, written in English or Chinese. No limitations were placed on study design. Reviewers screened and categorized studies according to i) publication type, ii) country of publication, and iii) topics covered. Original articles were critically appraised using validated quality assessment tools.ResultsAmong the 11,452 publications identified, 10,516 met the inclusion criteria, among which 7468 (71.0%) were peer-reviewed articles. Among these, 4190 publications (56.1%) did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces). Overall, the most represented topics were infectious disease (n = 2326, 22.1%), epidemiology (n = 1802, 17.1%), and global health (n = 1602, 15.2%). The top five publishing countries were China (25.8%), United States (22.3%), United Kingdom (8.8%), Italy (8.1%) and India (3.4%). The dynamic of publication showed that the exponential growth of COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles was mainly driven by publications without original data (mean 261.5 articles ± 51.1 per week) as compared with original articles (mean of 69.3 ± 22.3 articles per week). Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. A total of 576 original articles (80.8%) showed intermediate to high risk of bias. Last, except for simulation studies that mainly used large-scale open data, the median number of patients enrolled was of 102 (IQR = 37-337).ConclusionsSince the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/5zjyx/.

Project description:BackgroundWe have followed the COVID-19 clinical trial research agenda from the beginning using the COVID-evidence.org platform. Now, two years after the COVID-19 pandemic started, our aim was to re-examine this research agenda with the latest data to provide a global perspective on the research landscape with a focus on Germany.MethodsWe reviewed and updated previously published data on the COVID-19 clinical research agenda as of 28February 2022 focusing on randomized trials. We used the COVID-evidence.org platform including registry entries from ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform as well as publications from the Living OVerview of Evidence platform for COVID-19 (L·OVE).ResultsTwo years on from the pandemic outbreak, there were 4,673 registered trials. The majority of these trials have remained small with a median of 120 planned participants (IQR 60-320). In the first hundred days of the pandemic most of them (50%) had been registered in China. More than two years later, the five countries with the most registered trials (alone or within a framework of international collaborations) were the USA (825 trials; 18%), Iran (619 trials; 13%), India (566 trials; 12%), China (353 trials; 8%), and Spain (309 trials; 7%). Only 119 trials were reported to have a study site in Germany (2.5% of the registered trials). Of the 4,673 trials registered, 15% (694 trials) had published their results by February 2022. The clinical research agenda has been marked by both successes, such as the large RECOVERY trial providing evidence on 10 treatments for COVID-19 including over 45,000 patients as of February 2022, and failures: worldwide only 57 randomized trials have been registered over two years that aimed to assess non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g., face mask policies and lockdown measures) to prevent COVID-19, and only 11 of them had published results informing decisions that have an impact on the life of billions of people worldwide.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 clinical research agenda has highlighted the substantial effort of the research community but also the challenges of the clinical research ecosystem. Most importantly, it has shed light on the ability to circumvent traditional barriers and to make trials more useful even under extraordinary conditions. The time to learn our lessons and apply them is now, and the time to demonstrate how we have improved the system is before the next pandemic.

Dataset Information

COVID-19 and the environment: A critical review and research agenda.

Publications

COVID-19 and the environment: A critical review and research agenda.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets