Systematic literature search, review and dissemination methodology for the COVID-19 pandemic

IF 1.1 Q2 Social Sciences
C. Reynard, D. Darbyshire, G. Prager, A. Jafar, M. Naguib, Govind Oliver, Patricia van den Berg, R. Body, Harriet Ambroziak, S. Carley
{"title":"Systematic literature search, review and dissemination methodology for the COVID-19 pandemic","authors":"C. Reynard, D. Darbyshire, G. Prager, A. Jafar, M. Naguib, Govind Oliver, Patricia van den Berg, R. Body, Harriet Ambroziak, S. Carley","doi":"10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000817","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose of the study SARS-CoV-2 has caused healthcare systems globally to reorganise. A pandemic paradox emerged; while clinicians were desperate for information on a new disease, they had less time to find and evaluate the vast volume of publications at times of significant strain on healthcare systems. A multidisciplinary team undertook a weekly literature search capturing all COVID-19 publications. We also monitored free open access medical education (FOAMed) sources for emerging themes. Title and abstract screening pooled the most relevant papers for emergency medicine. Three summary types were created, a ‘Top 5 Flash Update’, a journal club and a rapid response to emerging FOAMed themes. From these summaries, three modes of dissemination were used: short written summaries, blogs and podcasts. These were amplified through social media. Study design A retrospective review was conducted assessing the impact of this knowledge dissemination strategy for the period of March to September 2020. Results In total, 64 687 papers were identified and screened. Of the papers included in the ‘Top 5’, 28.3% were on epidemiology, 23.6% treatment, 16.7% diagnostics, 12% prognosis, 8.7% pathophysiology with the remaining 10.7% consisting of PPE, public health, well-being and ‘other’. We published 37 blogs, 17 podcasts and 18 Top 5 Flash Updates. The blogs were read 138 343 times, the Top 5 Flash Updates 68 610 times and the podcasts had 72 501 listens. Conclusion A combination of traditional academic and novel social media approaches can address the pandemic paradox clinicians are facing.","PeriodicalId":44757,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000817","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Purpose of the study SARS-CoV-2 has caused healthcare systems globally to reorganise. A pandemic paradox emerged; while clinicians were desperate for information on a new disease, they had less time to find and evaluate the vast volume of publications at times of significant strain on healthcare systems. A multidisciplinary team undertook a weekly literature search capturing all COVID-19 publications. We also monitored free open access medical education (FOAMed) sources for emerging themes. Title and abstract screening pooled the most relevant papers for emergency medicine. Three summary types were created, a ‘Top 5 Flash Update’, a journal club and a rapid response to emerging FOAMed themes. From these summaries, three modes of dissemination were used: short written summaries, blogs and podcasts. These were amplified through social media. Study design A retrospective review was conducted assessing the impact of this knowledge dissemination strategy for the period of March to September 2020. Results In total, 64 687 papers were identified and screened. Of the papers included in the ‘Top 5’, 28.3% were on epidemiology, 23.6% treatment, 16.7% diagnostics, 12% prognosis, 8.7% pathophysiology with the remaining 10.7% consisting of PPE, public health, well-being and ‘other’. We published 37 blogs, 17 podcasts and 18 Top 5 Flash Updates. The blogs were read 138 343 times, the Top 5 Flash Updates 68 610 times and the podcasts had 72 501 listens. Conclusion A combination of traditional academic and novel social media approaches can address the pandemic paradox clinicians are facing.
COVID-19大流行的系统文献检索、综述和传播方法
研究目的SARS-CoV-2已经导致全球医疗系统重组。流行病悖论出现了;虽然临床医生迫切需要一种新疾病的信息,但在医疗保健系统面临重大压力的时候,他们没有足够的时间来查找和评估大量的出版物。一个多学科小组每周进行文献检索,收集所有COVID-19出版物。我们还监测了新兴主题的免费开放医学教育(FOAMed)资源。题目和摘要筛选汇集了与急诊医学最相关的论文。我们创建了三种总结类型:“五大Flash更新”、期刊俱乐部和对新兴泡沫主题的快速响应。从这些摘要中,使用了三种传播模式:简短的书面摘要、博客和播客。这些通过社交媒体被放大了。研究设计对2020年3月至9月期间这一知识传播策略的影响进行了回顾性评估。结果共筛选论文64 687篇。在入选“前5名”的论文中,28.3%为流行病学,23.6%为治疗,16.7%为诊断,12%为预后,8.7%为病理生理学,其余10.7%为个人防护装备、公共卫生、福祉和“其他”。我们发布了37个博客,17个播客和18个排名前5的Flash更新。博客被阅读了138 343次,前5个Flash更新被阅读了68 610次,播客被收听了72 501次。传统的学术方法与新型社交媒体方法相结合,可以解决临床医生面临的大流行悖论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning
BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信