The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID-19: An analysis of PROSPERO records.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
This study aimed to assess the characteristics of different designs of systematic reviews (SRs) registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) about COVID-19.Methods
The search was performed in the PROSPERO database using the strategy proposed by the database and considered only human studies. The last date of the search was April 27, 2020. Full text of all records was accessed, and data were extracted by a single researcher, which was further double-checked by another researcher. A descriptive analysis was performed considering record characteristics using tables.Results
We included 564 records from which the vast majority were registered as SRs (n = 513, 91%). In general, we found poor reporting and missing or confusing information, since 84% of the records (n = 474) did not report the full search that would be adopted, 16% (n = 90) did not report clearly the databases that would be used, and 49.1% (n = 277) did not report the number of primary outcomes. The main focus of most of the records involved clinical, epidemiological, complication, and laboratory characteristics (n = 173, 30.7%) or the treatment of COVID-19 (n = 138, 24.5%).Conclusion
A large number of SRs about COVID-19 have been conducted, and many of the assessed records were poorly reported and would be difficult to replicate. Besides, collected data points to an epidemic of redundant reviews on COVID-19.
SUBMITTER: Dotto L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8013525 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Systematic reviews of health interventions are increasingly incorporating evidence outside of randomized controlled trials (RCT). While non-randomized study (NRS) types may be more prone to bias compared to RCT, the tools used to evaluate risk of bias (RoB) in NRS are less straightforward and no gold standard tool exists. The objective of this study was to evaluate the planned use of RoB tools in systematic reviews of health interventions, specifically for reviews that planned to incorporate evidence from RCT and/or NRS. METHODS:We evaluated a random sample of non-Cochrane protocols for systematic reviews of interventions registered in PROSPERO between January 1 and October 12, 2018. For each protocol, we extracted data on the types of studies to be included (RCT and/or NRS) as well as the name and number of RoB tools planned to be used according to study design. We then conducted a longitudinal analysis of the most commonly reported tools in the random sample. Using keywords and name variants for each tool, we searched PROSPERO records by year since the inception of the database (2011 to December 7, 2018), restricting the keyword search to the "Risk of bias (quality) assessment" field. RESULTS:In total, 471 randomly sampled PROSPERO protocols from 2018 were included in the analysis. About two-thirds (63%) of these planned to include NRS, while 37% restricted study design to RCT or quasi-RCT. Over half of the protocols that planned to include NRS listed only a single RoB tool, most frequently the Cochrane RoB Tool. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROBINS-I were the most commonly reported tools for NRS (39% and 33% respectively) for systematic reviews that planned to use multiple RoB tools. Looking at trends over time, the planned use of the Cochrane RoB Tool and ROBINS-I seems to be increasing. CONCLUSIONS:While RoB tool selection for RCT was consistent, with the Cochrane RoB Tool being the most frequently reported in PROSPERO protocols, RoB tools for NRS varied widely. Results suggest a need for more education and awareness on the appropriate use of RoB tools for NRS. Given the heterogeneity of study designs comprising NRS, multiple RoB tools tailored to specific designs may be required.
| S-EPMC6857304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNavigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.MethodsNine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes.ResultsEighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as "critically low". Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%.ConclusionsIn this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was "critically low". Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.
| S-EPMC8177249 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study examines the conduct of systematic reviews during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, including compliance to protocol registration and duplication of reviews on similar topics. The methodological and reporting quality were also explored.MethodsA cross-sectional, bibliometric study was undertaken of all systematic review manuscripts on a COVID-19 intervention published between January 1st and June 30th, 2020. Protocol registration on a publicly accessible database was recorded. Duplication was determined by systematically recording the number of reviews published on each topic of analysis. Methodological quality and reporting quality were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA 2009 instruments, respectively.ResultsThirty-one eligible systematic reviews were identified during the inclusion period. The protocol of only four (12.9%) studies was registered on a publicly accessible database. Duplication was frequent, with 15 (48.4%) of the 31 included studies focusing on either hydroxychloroquine (and/or chloroquine) or corticosteroids. Only one study (3.2%) was of "high" methodological quality, four (12.9%) were "low" quality, and the remainder (n = 26, 83.9%) were of "critically low" quality. The median completeness of reporting was 20 out of 27 items (74.1%) with a range of 5-26 (interquartile range: 14-23).ConclusionSystematic reviews during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic were uncommonly registered, frequently duplicated, and mostly of low methodological quality. In contrast, the reporting quality of manuscripts was generally good but varied substantially across published reports. There is a need for heightened stewardship of systematic review research, particularly during times of medical crisis where the generation of primary evidence may be rapid and unstable.
| S-EPMC9059200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral meta-analysis studies have been reported in the literature on the incidence of psychopathological conditions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. This investigation aims to compile and analyze the findings of previously published meta-analysis research, as shown by the present meta-analysis of previous meta-analysis studies.MethodsThe PubMed and Scopus databases were searched from 1 January 2019 to 30 May 2022. The procedure was carried out according to the PRISMA flow chart and the qualities of the identified studies were analyzed using AMSTAR 2. Heterogeneities and risk of bias were assessed using the Meta-MUMS tool. The corresponding results, forest and funnel plots of the psychological consequences of COVID-19 were synthesized.ResultsEleven meta-analysis studies were included. Random-effects meta-analysis of anxiety and depression showed (ER = 0.318 p-value < 0.001, ER = 0.295 p-value < 0.001) high heterogeneities (I2 = 99.70%, I2 = 99.75) between studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of sleep difficulties and insomnia were shown (ER = 0.347 p-value < 0.001, ER = 0.265, p-value < 0.001) along with heterogeneities (I2 = 99.89, I2 = 99.64). According to the random meta-analysis of post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (ER = 0.246, p-value = 0.001, ER = 0.223 p-value < 0.001) with heterogeneities (I2 = 99.75, I2 = 99.17). Random-effects meta-analyses of somatic and fear symptoms have been shown (ER = 0.16 p-value < 0.001, ER = 0.41, p-value = 0.089) with high heterogeneities (I2 = 99.62, I2 = 98.63). Random-effects meta-analysis of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and distress (ER = 0.297 p-value = 0.103; ER = 0.428, p-value = 0.013) with high heterogeneity, as I2 = 99.38%. Subgroup analysis of all symptoms and Egger's tests for detecting publication bias were also assessed.ConclusionThe data from the current meta-analysis showed different psychological disorders of COVID-19 during the pandemic. Clinicians should be aware of the prevalence with which COVID-19-infected patients experience emotional distress, anxiety, fatigue, and PTSD. About half of the included systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) suffered from poorer methodological quality and increased risk of bias, reducing confidence in the findings. There must be more SRs/MAs and high-quality clinical trials conducted to confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC10506209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruption to routine activity in primary care. Medication reviews are an important primary care activity ensuring safety and appropriateness of prescribing. A disruption could have significant negative implications for patient care. Using routinely collected data, our aim was first to describe codes used to record medication review activity and then to report the impact of COVID-19 on the rates of medication reviews.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study of 20 million adult patient records in general practice, in-situ using the OpenSAFELY platform. For each month, between April 2019 and March 2022, we report the percentage of patients with a medication review coded monthly and in the previous 12 months with breakdowns by regional, clinical and demographic subgroups and those prescribed high-risk medications.ResultsIn April 2019, 32.3% of patients had a medication review coded in the previous 12 months. During the first COVID-19 lockdown, monthly activity decreased (-21.1% April 2020), but the 12-month rate was not substantially impacted (-10.5% March 2021). The rate of structured medication review in the last 12 months reached 2.9% by March 2022, with higher percentages in high-risk groups (care home residents 34.1%, age 90+ years 13.1%, high-risk medications 10.2%). The most used medication review code was Medication review done 314530002 (59.5%).ConclusionsThere was a substantial reduction in the monthly rate of medication reviews during the pandemic but rates recovered by the end of the study period. Structured medication reviews were prioritized for high-risk patients.
| S-EPMC7616229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered an important tool for decision-making. There has been no recent comprehensive identification or description of child-relevant SRs. A description of existing child-relevant SRs would help to identify the extent of available child-relevant evidence available in SRs and gaps in the evidence base where SRs are required. The objective of this study was to describe child-relevant SRs from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 2, 2009).SRs were assessed for relevance using pre-defined criteria. Data were extracted and entered into an electronic form. Univariate analyses were performed to describe the SRs overall and by topic area.The search yielded 1666 SRs; 793 met the inclusion criteria. 38% of SRs were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2007. Corresponding authors were most often from the UK (41%). Most SRs (59%) examined pharmacological interventions. 53% had at least one external source of funding. SRs included a median of 7 studies (IQR 3, 15) and 679 participants (IQR 179, 2833). Of all studies, 48% included only children, and 27% only adults. 94% of studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Primary outcomes were specified in 72% of SRs. Allocation concealment and the Jadad scale were used in 97% and 25% of SRs, respectively. Adults and children were analyzed separately in 12% of SRs and as a subgroup analysis in 14%. Publication bias was assessed in only 14% of SRs. A meta-analysis was conducted in 68% of SRs with a median of 5 trials (IQR 3, 9) each. Variations in these characteristics were observed across topic areas.We described the methodological characteristics and rigour of child-relevant reviews in the CDSR. Many SRs are not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria. Our study describes variation in conduct and reporting across SRs and reveals clinicians' ability to access child-specific data.
| S-EPMC2881081 | biostudies-other
Project description:AimsTo consolidate evidence to determine (i) the association between cardiovascular risk factors and health outcomes with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19); and (ii) the impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular health.Methods and resultsAn umbrella review of systematic reviews was conducted. Fourteen medical databases and pre-print servers were searched from 1 January 2020 to 5 November 2020. The review focused on reviews rated as moderate or high-quality using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Eighty-four reviews were identified; 31 reviews were assessed as moderate quality and one was high-quality. The following risk factors were associated with higher mortality and severe COVID-19: renal disease [odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval) for mortality 3.07 (2.43-3.88)], diabetes mellitus [OR 2.09 (1.80-2.42)], hypertension [OR 2.50 (2.02-3.11)], smoking history [risk ratio (RR) 1.26 (1.20-1.32)], cerebrovascular disease [RR 2.75 (1.54-4.89)], and cardiovascular disease [OR 2.65 (1.86-3.78)]. Liver disease was associated with higher odds of mortality [OR 2.81 (1.31-6.01)], but not severe COVID-19. Current smoking was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 [RR 1.80 (1.14-2.85)], but not mortality. Obesity associated with higher odds of mortality [OR 2.18 (1.10-4.34)], but there was an absence of evidence for severe COVID-19. In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the following incident cardiovascular complications were identified: acute heart failure (2%), myocardial infarction (4%), deep vein thrombosis (7%), myocardial injury (10%), angina (10%), arrhythmias (18%), pulmonary embolism (19%), and venous thromboembolism (25%).ConclusionMany of the risk factors identified as associated with adverse outcomes with COVID-19 are potentially modifiable. Primary and secondary prevention strategies that target cardiovascular risk factors may improve outcomes for people following COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8294691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSince the beginning of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, various complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) have been used in clinical practice. In this overview, we summarized the evidence for CAM interventions in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.MethodsFor this overview, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2021. Systematic reviews (SRs) on the effectiveness and safety of CAM interventions for COVID-19 patients were located, and the MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was used to evaluate the reporting quality of the included SRs. Keywords including COVID-19 and CAM interventions were used for locating SRs. For evidence mapping, we created a two-dimensional bubble plot that included the width and strength of the evidence for each CAM intervention and specific outcome.ResultsIn this overview, we identified 24 SRs (21 for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) medications, two for vitamin D and one for home-based activity). From the included SRs, TCM herbal medications were reported to show good results in decreasing the rate of disease progression (relative risk (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence intervals (CI) [0.20, 0.44]), time to the resolution of fever (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.98, 95% CI [-1.78, -0.17]) and rate of progression to severe COVID-19 cases (RR 0.34, 95% CI [0.18, 0.65]), but the evidence for other interventions did not show effectiveness with certainty. Gastric disturbance was a major adverse event of TCM medications.ConclusionThere is evidence that TCM medications are effective in the symptom management of COVID-19 patients. However, evidence for the effectiveness of most CAM interventions still needs evaluation.
| S-EPMC8918082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 research has been produced at an unprecedented rate and managing what is currently known is in part being accomplished through synthesis research. Here we evaluated how the need to rapidly produce syntheses has impacted the quality of the synthesis research. Thus, we sought to identify, evaluate and map the synthesis research on COVID-19 published up to 10 July 2020. A COVID-19 literature database was created using pre-specified COVID-19 search algorithms carried out in eight databases. We identified 863 citations considered to be synthesis research for evaluation in this project. Four-hundred and thirty-nine reviews were fully assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and rated as very low-quality (n = 145), low-quality (n = 80), medium-quality (n = 208) and high-quality (n = 151). The quality of these reviews fell short of what is expected for synthesis research with key domains being left out of the typical methodology. The increase in risk of bias due to non-adherence to systematic review methodology is unknown and prevents the reader from assessing the validity of the review. The responsibility to assure the quality is held by both producers and publishers of synthesis research and our findings indicate there is a need to equip readers with the expertise to evaluate the review conduct before using it for decision-making purposes.
| S-EPMC8365192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach.Study design and settingIn this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints).ResultsWe included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4-57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth.ConclusionThere was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication.
| S-EPMC8858007 | biostudies-literature