key: cord-0694626-copf104r
authors: Zhang, Xiaomeng; Xu, Wei; Dozier, Marshall; Nzvere, Farirai P; Krishan, Prerna; He, Yazhou; Li, Xue; Theodoratou, Evropi
title: Advances in COVID-19 research until November 2020: Update from the UNCOVER registry
date: 2021-01-30
journal: Journal of global health
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.11.03022
sha: ddf8711ae4ca1382bb47c13d461b68547853f3eb
doc_id: 694626
cord_uid: copf104r

nan

(n = 342, 14.7%); 3) Health-system arrangements (n = 85, 3.6%); 4) Economic and social responses (n = 59, 2.5%); 5) Other reviews (n = 93, 4.0%) (Figure 2 , Panel A) [7] . We further categorised each review into 22 subgroups under the five COVIDEND groups ( Table 1 Panel B. Review sources. medRxiv preprints were replaced with the peer-reviewed publications once they have been published in peer-reviewed journals; the review types displayed directly in the searching results of the website and the review sources can be accessed through the filter. 

Clinical management of COVID-19 and pandemic-related health issues, a total of 1755 reviews were divided into seven subgroups: Clinical features (n = 372); Clinical tests (n = 147); Clinical treatments (n = 454); Clinical trials (n = 15); Clinical outcomes (n = 123); Clinical risk prediction models (n = 15); and COVID-19 and comorbidities (n = 480).

Public-health measures, a total of 342 reviews were divided into six subgroups: Infection (n = 37); Transmission (n = 115); Public health burden (n = 8); Prevention and control measures (n = 109); Living habits (n = 28); Environmental impact (n = 7).

Health-system arrangements, a total of 85 reviews were divided into two subgroups: Health care resource arrangement (n = 38); Clinical department arrangement (n = 42). Authorship contributions: XZ, WX wrote the manuscript with input from all co-authors. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Competing interests: The authors completed the ICMJE Unified Competing Interest form (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no conflicts of interest Economic and social responses, a total of 59 reviews were divided into four subgroups: Education (n = 11); Social consequences (n = 29); Economy (n = 7); Governance (n = 6).

Other reviews, a total of 93 reviews were divided into three subgroups: Comparison of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS (n = 32); Publications (n = 25); Coronavirus genomic RNA packaging (n = 19).

On average, we include 292 reviews per month. There has been an increasing trend in the number of published or ongoing COVID-19 reviews and the composition of research topics has changed over time. Figure 2 , Panel B, shows that the proportion of reviews on clinical management of COVID-19 and pandemic-related health issues increased from April to September (from 60.3% to 82.3%) but the proportion has been steadily declining since September to 74.4% and 72.4% for October and November respectively. In contrast, the proportion of reviews on public health measures decreased from May to September except for August (from 21.4% to 10.5%) and the proportion was higher in October and November (16.8% and 13.9% respectively). For the other three topics, the trend is fluctuating. We further categorized the pandemic into three time periods: 1) before June 2020, where the main contributors were Western Pacific, Americas and Europe but the case incidence was kept in relatively low levels; 2) June-September 2020, where the number of new cases continued to increase and the main contributors were Americas and South-East Asia; and 3) October 2020 to now, where the number of cases increased significantly driven by the second outbreak in Americas and Europe. From Figure 2 , Panel C, the highest proportion of reviews on clinical management of COVID-19 and pandemic-related health issues was in June to September while the proportion of reviews on public health measures was relatively high in periods before June and after September. The proportion of reviews on economic and social responses has been increasing, but they still account for a small proportion.

In summary, a total of 2334 COVID-19 evidence-based reviews have been indexed in UNCOVER registry, more than half of the reviews included were from PubMed, and over two-thirds of the included reviews were systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The research topics concentrated on clinical features, tests, treatment and outcomes, COVID-19 comorbidities, and the transmission, prevention and control of COVID-19. Although we have seen an increasing trend for reviews on economic and social responses across the three time periods, the total number remains very low and not in line with its importance.

The registry offers the opportunity to explore the aforementioned topics using state of the art methodologies in evidence-based research (such as umbrella reviews with evidence synthesis and assessment of the risk of bias) [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] . This will provide policymakers, clinicians and researchers a clear understanding of broad topic areas in relation to COVID-19.

Photo: Register of reviews from UNCOVER team, the University of Edinburgh (from the author's own collection, used with permission).

The research topics of COVID-19 related reviews concentrated on clinical features, tests, treatment and outcomes, COVID-19 comorbidities, and the transmission, prevention and control of COVID-19.

World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports

A coordinated global research map: 2019 novel coronavirus

UNCOVER registry: A searchable online catalogue for COVID-19 evidence reviews

UNCOVER (USHER NETWORK FOR COVID-19 EVIDENCE REVIEWS). UNCOVER Register

National collaborating centre for methods and tools. COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews

Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised trials

Serum uric acid levels and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of evidence from observational studies, randomised controlled trials, and Mendelian randomisation studies

Statins and Multiple Noncardiovascular Outcomes: Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses of Observational Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials

Non-genetic biomarkers and colorectal cancer risk: Umbrella review and evidence triangulation

Risk factors and risk prediction models for colorectal cancer metastasis and recurrence: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies