The interplay between SARS-CoV-2 and contemporaneous bacterial or fungal culture growth may have crucial implications for clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients. This study aimed to quantify the effect of microbiological culture positivity on mortality among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2.

In this retrospective cohort study, we included adult hospitalized patients from OPTUM COVID-19 specific data set, who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days of hospitalization between 01/20/2020 and 01/20/2022. We examined outcomes of individuals with organisms growing on cultures from the bloodstream infections (BSIs), urinary tract, and respiratory tract, and a composite of the three sites. We used propensity score matching on covariates included demographics, comorbidities, and hospitalization clinical parameters. In a sensitivity analysis, we included same covariates but excluded critical care variables such as length of stay, intensive care unit stays, mechanical ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The cohort included 104,560 SARS-CoV-2 positive adult hospitalized patients across the United States. The unadjusted mortality odds increased significantly with BSIs (98.7%) and with growth on respiratory cultures (RC) (176.6%), but not with growth on urinary cultures (UC). Adjusted analyses showed that BSIs and positive RC independently contribute to mortality, even after accounting for critical care variables.

In SARS-CoV-2-positive hospitalized patients, positive bacterial and fungal microbiological cultures, especially BSIs and RC, are associated with an increased risk of mortality even after accounting for critical care variables associated with disease severity. These findings underscore the importance of stringent infection control and the effective management of secondary infections to improve patient outcomes.

Social media’s arrival eased the sharing of mis- and disinformation. False information proved challenging throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with many clinicians and researchers analyzing the “infodemic.” We systemically reviewed and synthesized COVID-19 mis- and disinformation literature, identifying the prevalence and content of false information and exploring mitigation and prevention strategies.

We identified and analyzed publications on COVID-19-related mis- and disinformation published from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022, in PubMed. We performed a manual topic review of the abstracts along with automated topic modeling to organize and compare the different themes. We also conducted sentiment (ranked −3 to +3) and emotion analysis (rated as predominately happy, sad, angry, surprised, or fearful) of the abstracts.

We reviewed 868 peer-reviewed scientific publications of which 639 (74%) had abstracts available for automatic topic modeling and sentiment analysis. More than a third of publications described mitigation and prevention-related issues. The mean sentiment score for the publications was 0.685, and 56% of studies had a negative sentiment (fear and sadness as the most common emotions).

Our comprehensive analysis reveals a significant proliferation of dis- and misinformation research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study illustrates the pivotal role of social media in amplifying false information. Research into the infodemic was characterized by negative sentiments. Combining manual and automated topic modeling provided a nuanced understanding of the complexities of COVID-19-related misinformation, highlighting themes such as the source and effect of misinformation, and strategies for mitigation and prevention.