A growing body of literature on the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is becoming available, but a synthesis of available data has not been conducted. We performed a scoping review of currently available clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and chest imaging data related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS from 01 January 2019 to 24 February 2020. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted using the clinical and laboratory data, and random-effects models were applied to estimate pooled results. A total of 61 studies were included (59,254 patients). The most common disease-related symptoms were fever (82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 56%–99%; n = 4410), cough (61%, 95% CI 39%–81%; n = 3985), muscle aches and/or fatigue (36%, 95% CI 18%–55%; n = 3778), dyspnea (26%, 95% CI 12%–41%; n = 3700), headache in 12% (95% CI 4%–23%, n = 3598 patients), sore throat in 10% (95% CI 5%–17%, n = 1387) and gastrointestinal symptoms in 9% (95% CI 3%–17%, n = 1744). Laboratory findings were described in a lower number of patients and revealed lymphopenia (0.93 × 10⁹/L, 95% CI 0.83–1.03 × 10⁹/L, n = 464) and abnormal C-reactive protein (33.72 mg/dL, 95% CI 21.54–45.91 mg/dL; n = 1637). Radiological findings varied, but mostly described ground-glass opacities and consolidation. Data on treatment options were limited. All-cause mortality was 0.3% (95% CI 0.0%–1.0%; n = 53,631). Epidemiological studies showed that mortality was higher in males and elderly patients. The majority of reported clinical symptoms and laboratory findings related to SARS-CoV-2 infection are non-specific. Clinical suspicion, accompanied by a relevant epidemiological history, should be followed by early imaging and virological assay.

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields. We searched bibliographical databases to identify articles describing empirical quantitive or qualitative research from all scholarly fields on different aspects of authorship. Search was limited to original articles and reviews. The final sample consisted of 123 articles reporting results from 118 studies. Most studies came for biomedical and health research fields and social sciences. Study design was usually a survey (53%) or descriptive study (27%); only 2 studies used randomized design. We identified four 4 general themes common to all research disciplines: authorship perceptions, definitions and practices, defining order of authors on the byline, ethical and unethical authorship practices, and authorship issues related to student/non-research personnel-supervisor collaboration. For 14 survey studies, a meta-analysis showed a pooled weighted average of 29% (95% CI 24% to 35%) researchers reporting their own or others' experience with misuse of authorship. Authorship misuse was reported more often by researcher outside of the USA and UK: 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%) for 4 studies in France, South Africa, India and Bangladesh vs. 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) in USA/UK or international journal settings. High prevalence of authorship problems may have severe impact on the integrity of the research process, just as more serious forms of research misconduct. There is a need for more methodologically rigorous studies to understand the allocation of publication credit across research disciplines.

No evidence that women are penalized in peer review and editorial processes, finds study on 145 journals in multiple disciplines.

Replication is an essential part of the scientific method, yet replication of systematic reviews is too often overlooked, and done unnecessarily or poorly. Excessive replication (doing the same study repeatedly) is unethical and a cause of research wastage. This article provides consensus based guidance on when to replicate and not replicate systematic reviews.

We assessed the adequacy of randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration, changes to registration data and reporting completeness for articles in ICMJE journals during 2.5 years after registration requirement policy. For a set of 149 reports of 152 RCTs with ClinicalTrials.gov registration number, published from September 2005 to April 2008, we evaluated the completeness of 9 items from WHO 20-item Minimum Data Set relevant for assessing trial quality. We also assessed changes to the registration elements at the Archive site of ClinicalTrials.gov and compared published and registry data. RCTs were mostly registered before 13 September 2005 deadline (n = 101, 66.4%); 118 (77.6%) started recruitment before and 31 (20.4%) after registration. At the time of registration, 152 RCTs had a total of 224 missing registry fields, most commonly ‘Key secondary outcomes’ (44.1% RCTs) and ‘Primary outcome’ (38.8%). More RCTs with post-registration recruitment had missing Minimum Data Set items than RCTs with pre-registration recruitment: 57/118 (48.3%) vs. 24/31 (77.4%) (χ²₁ = 7.255, P = 0.007). Major changes in the data entries were found for 31 (25.2%) RCTs. The number of RCTs with differences between registered and published data ranged from 21 (13.8%) for Study type to 118 (77.6%) for Target sample size. ICMJE journals published RCTs with proper registration but the registration data were often not adequate, underwent substantial changes in the registry over time and differed in registered and published data. Editors need to establish quality control procedures in the journals so that they continue to contribute to the increased transparency of clinical trials.