technical paper
Media Attention, Twitter Engagement, and Citations of COVID-19 Clinical Trial Preprints and Their Corresponding Peer-Reviewed Publications
keywords:
pandemic science
preprints
social media
Objective To compare media attention, Twitter engagement,
and citations among COVID-19–related clinical trial preprints
and corresponding peer-reviewed publications.
Design Preprints of clinical trials were included in this
cross-sectional study if they reported results related to the
treatment or prevention of COVID-19 and were uploaded to
an open access preprint server indexed by the National
Institutes of Health iSearch COVID-19 portfolio in 2020. Two
investigators, including a medical librarian, independently
searched Medline, Google Scholar, and Embase to identify
peer-reviewed publications corresponding to the included
preprints. Altmetric data were used to quantify media
mentions and Twitter interactions within 3 months after
publication for both preprints and peer-reviewed
manuscripts. Citation counts were also recorded using Web of
Science. Descriptive statistics were reported for the included
trials, and linear regression was used to assess associations
between study characteristics and media mentions, Twitter
interactions, and citation counts.
Results Of 22,615 preprints screened for eligibility, 145 were
included. MedRxiv was the source for most eligible preprints
(n =100; 69%). Peer reviewed publications matching 118 of
145 preprints (81%) were found. Sixty-eight preprints (47%)
received media citations within 3 months of publication
(median IQR number of mentions per preprint, 0 0-9;
maximum mentions, 568), and 118 (81%) had Twitter
interactions (median IQR tweets per preprint, 28 4-202;
maximum mentions, 18,177). One hundred preprints (69%)
were cited in published literature (median IQR citations, 2
0-12). Among 118 preprints with matching peer-reviewed
publications, Altmetric and citation data were unavailable for
5 (4%). Preprints received more media mentions than the
corresponding peer-reviewed publications in 33 cases (28%),
equal mentions in 38 cases (32%), and fewer media mentions
in 42 cases (36%). Twitter mentions were greater for
preprints than peer-reviewed publications in 54 cases (46%),
equal in 2 (2%), and fewer for 62 (53%). In 26 cases (22%),
preprints received more citations than peer-reviewed
publications; citation counts were equal in 6 cases (5%) and
in 85 cases (72%), the peer-reviewed version received more
citations. Study size, government funding, failure to
prospectively register, and positive study results were most
often associated with increased media mentions, tweets, and
citations (Table 20).
Conclusions Although peer-reviewed publications had more
media, Twitter, and citation activity than corresponding
preprints in most cases, it was not uncommon for preprints to
receive more attention than peer-reviewed publications.
Measures of trial reliability or quality were generally not
associated with increases in these metrics.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures Christopher W. Jones reported
receiving grants from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Vapotherm, and
Ophirex outside the submitted work. Timothy F. Platts-Mills is an
employee of Ophirex. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding/Support This work was supported by the US
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of
Research Integrity (grant ORIIR200066-01-00).
Role of the Funder/Sponsor The sponsor had no role in
the design and conduct of the study; collection, management,
analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or
approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the abstract for
presentation.
Additional Information The contents of this manuscript are
those of the authors and do not represent the official views of, nor
an endorsement by, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health,
the HHS, or the US government.