Genesis of a free online bibliographic analysis program (Bibliovid) and its influence on clinical practices of healthcare professionals in the management of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2: a multicentric cross-sectional survey-based study

Problem — Literature search can be very time and energy-consuming for practitioners, particularly in times of pandemic. Future medical practice should consist of acting collectively with web-based tools. Intervention — In Grenoble, France, volunteer medical residents and public health doctors decided to design an online bibliographic program to select, analyze and summarize, in French, the most relevant scientific articles in order to help clinicians. The website was updated daily with a subsequent English translation of the analyzes. The project took place between March 26th and July 31st, 2020 and ending after the first wave of the pandemic. Context — In December 2019, an emerging infectious disease called Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) first appeared in Wuhan, China before spreading worldwide and leading to the World Health Organization’s declaration of a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” on January 30th, 2020. A wave of misinformation quickly reached the scientific world and beyond, due to an exponential increase in publications of varying qualities, making it difficult for evidence-based decisions. Impact — We conducted a cross-sectional observational survey-based study on healthcare professionals taking care of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients during the first wave of the pandemic using an online bibliographic analysis program (Bibliovid) to assess the impact of the level of use of this tool on drafting and updating of standardized guidelines, changes in department and individual practices, their standardization, and time saved by clinicians as well as the impact on their literature search, using a 70-point scoring system, each question being self-reported on a scale from 0 to 10. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the questionnaire based on the scoring system, evaluating its internal consistency, was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.77–0.79). The average total score was significantly higher in the high-use group compared to the low-use group (48.4 ± 12.8 vs 39 ± 12; p<.001) in multivariate analysis. A significant relationship was found between the impact on changes in practices (total score) and the professional’s participation in protocol development (p = 0.009) and department logistics (p = 0.003). Lessons Learned — At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the creation of a free online bibliographic review in French, Bibliovid, proved to be helpful for healthcare professionals. With the prolongation of the pandemic, however, we realized that the sustainability of this tool required long term dedicated financial and human resources. To manage and update the large amounts of publications artificial intelligence may be a helpful tool.