The private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies

<h4>Background</h4> The private versus public contribution to developing new health knowledge and interventions is deeply contentious. Proponents of commercial innovation highlight its role in late-stage clinical trials, regulatory approval, and widespread distribution. Proponents of pub...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Reed F. Beall, Javad Moradpour, Aidan Hollis
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/bbdf4ba2572e407d8c7e6934c1427eef
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:bbdf4ba2572e407d8c7e6934c1427eef
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:bbdf4ba2572e407d8c7e6934c1427eef2021-11-04T06:07:13ZThe private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies1932-6203https://doaj.org/article/bbdf4ba2572e407d8c7e6934c1427eef2021-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8535173/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203<h4>Background</h4> The private versus public contribution to developing new health knowledge and interventions is deeply contentious. Proponents of commercial innovation highlight its role in late-stage clinical trials, regulatory approval, and widespread distribution. Proponents of public innovation point out the role of public institutions in forming the foundational knowledge undergirding downstream innovation. The rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation has brought with it uniquely proactive public involvement to characterize, treat, and prevent this novel health treat. How has this affected the share of research by industry and public institutions, particularly compared to the experience of previous pandemics, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika? <h4>Methods</h4> Using Embase, we categorized all publications for COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika as having any author identified as affiliated with industry or not. We placed all disease areas on a common timeline of the number of days since the WHO had declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern with a six-month lookback window. We plotted the number and proportion of publications over time using a smoothing function and plotted a rolling 30-day cumulative sum to illustrate the variability in publication outputs over time. <h4>Results</h4> Industry-affiliated articles represented 2% (1,773 articles) of publications over the 14 months observed for COVID-19, 7% (278 articles) over 7.1 years observed for Ebola, 5% (350 articles) over 12.4 years observed for H1N1, and 3% (160 articles) over the 5.7 years observed for Zika. The proportion of industry-affiliated publications built steadily over the time observed, eventually plateauing around 7.5% for Ebola, 5.5% for H1H1, and 3.5% for Zika. In contrast, COVID-19’s proportion oscillated from 1.4% to above 2.7% and then declined again to 1.7%. At this point in the pandemic (i.e., 14 months since the PHEIC), the proportion of industry-affiliated articles had been higher for the other three disease areas; for example, the proportion for H1N1 was twice as high. <h4>Conclusions</h4> While the industry-affiliated contribution to the biomedical literature for COVID is extraordinary in its absolute number, its proportional share is unprecedentedly low currently. Nevertheless, the world has witnessed one of the most remarkable mobilizations of the biomedical innovation ecosystem in history.Reed F. BeallJavad MoradpourAidan HollisPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 10 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Reed F. Beall Javad Moradpour Aidan Hollis The private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies
description	<h4>Background</h4> The private versus public contribution to developing new health knowledge and interventions is deeply contentious. Proponents of commercial innovation highlight its role in late-stage clinical trials, regulatory approval, and widespread distribution. Proponents of public innovation point out the role of public institutions in forming the foundational knowledge undergirding downstream innovation. The rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation has brought with it uniquely proactive public involvement to characterize, treat, and prevent this novel health treat. How has this affected the share of research by industry and public institutions, particularly compared to the experience of previous pandemics, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika? <h4>Methods</h4> Using Embase, we categorized all publications for COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1 and Zika as having any author identified as affiliated with industry or not. We placed all disease areas on a common timeline of the number of days since the WHO had declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern with a six-month lookback window. We plotted the number and proportion of publications over time using a smoothing function and plotted a rolling 30-day cumulative sum to illustrate the variability in publication outputs over time. <h4>Results</h4> Industry-affiliated articles represented 2% (1,773 articles) of publications over the 14 months observed for COVID-19, 7% (278 articles) over 7.1 years observed for Ebola, 5% (350 articles) over 12.4 years observed for H1N1, and 3% (160 articles) over the 5.7 years observed for Zika. The proportion of industry-affiliated publications built steadily over the time observed, eventually plateauing around 7.5% for Ebola, 5.5% for H1H1, and 3.5% for Zika. In contrast, COVID-19’s proportion oscillated from 1.4% to above 2.7% and then declined again to 1.7%. At this point in the pandemic (i.e., 14 months since the PHEIC), the proportion of industry-affiliated articles had been higher for the other three disease areas; for example, the proportion for H1N1 was twice as high. <h4>Conclusions</h4> While the industry-affiliated contribution to the biomedical literature for COVID is extraordinary in its absolute number, its proportional share is unprecedentedly low currently. Nevertheless, the world has witnessed one of the most remarkable mobilizations of the biomedical innovation ecosystem in history.
format	article
author	Reed F. Beall Javad Moradpour Aidan Hollis
author_facet	Reed F. Beall Javad Moradpour Aidan Hollis
author_sort	Reed F. Beall
title	The private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies
title_short	The private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies
title_full	The private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies
title_fullStr	The private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies
title_full_unstemmed	The private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies
title_sort	private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the covid-19, ebola, h1n1, and zika public health emergencies
publisher	Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/bbdf4ba2572e407d8c7e6934c1427eef
work_keys_str_mv	AT reedfbeall theprivateversuspubliccontributiontothebiomedicalliteratureduringthecovid19ebolah1n1andzikapublichealthemergencies AT javadmoradpour theprivateversuspubliccontributiontothebiomedicalliteratureduringthecovid19ebolah1n1andzikapublichealthemergencies AT aidanhollis theprivateversuspubliccontributiontothebiomedicalliteratureduringthecovid19ebolah1n1andzikapublichealthemergencies AT reedfbeall privateversuspubliccontributiontothebiomedicalliteratureduringthecovid19ebolah1n1andzikapublichealthemergencies AT javadmoradpour privateversuspubliccontributiontothebiomedicalliteratureduringthecovid19ebolah1n1andzikapublichealthemergencies AT aidanhollis privateversuspubliccontributiontothebiomedicalliteratureduringthecovid19ebolah1n1andzikapublichealthemergencies
_version_	1718445173168406528

The private versus public contribution to the biomedical literature during the COVID-19, Ebola, H1N1, and Zika public health emergencies

Ejemplares similares