Dataset Information

Methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19: A meta-epidemiological study.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale, aims, and objectives

COVID-19 has caused an ongoing public health crisis. Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been performed to synthesize evidence for better understanding this new disease. However, some concerns have been raised about rapid COVID-19 research. This meta-epidemiological study aims to methodologically assess the current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19.

Methods

We searched in various databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses published between 1 January 2020 and 31 October 2020. We extracted their basic characteristics, data analyses, evidence appraisal, and assessment of publication bias and heterogeneity.

Results

We identified 295 systematic reviews on COVID-19. The median time from submission to acceptance was 33 days. Among these systematic reviews, 73.9% evaluated clinical manifestations or comorbidities of COVID-19. Stata was the most used software programme (43.39%). The odds ratio was the most used effect measure (34.24%). Moreover, 28.14% of the systematic reviews did not present evidence appraisal. Among those reporting the risk of bias results, 14.64% of studies had a high risk of bias. Egger's test was the most used method for assessing publication bias (38.31%), while 38.66% of the systematic reviews did not assess publication bias. The I² statistic was widely used for assessing heterogeneity (92.20%); many meta-analyses had high values of I² . Among the meta-analyses using the random-effects model, 75.82% did not report the methods for model implementation; among those meta-analyses reporting implementation methods, the DerSimonian-Laird method was the most used one.

Conclusions

The current systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19 might suffer from low transparency, high heterogeneity, and suboptimal statistical methods. It is recommended that future systematic reviews on COVID-19 strictly follow well-developed guidelines. Sensitivity analyses may be performed to examine how the synthesized evidence might depend on different methods for appraising evidence, assessing publication bias, and implementing meta-analysis models.

SUBMITTER: Rosenberger KJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242754 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To identify and critically assess the extent to which systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery differ in their methodology and reported estimates of effect.Review of published systematic reviews. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database from 1990 to March 2013. Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery were eligible for inclusion.The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. We assessed changes in pooled estimates of treatment effect over time and how these might have been influenced by decisions taken by researchers as well as by the availability of new trials. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) DARE critical appraisal process.10 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials have consistently shown a reduction in length of hospital stay with enhanced recovery compared with traditional care. The estimated effect tended to increase from 2006 to 2010 as more trials were published but has not altered significantly in the most recent review, despite the inclusion of several unique trials. The best estimate appears to be an average reduction of around 2.5?days in primary postoperative length of stay. Differences between reviews reflected differences in interpretation of inclusion criteria, searching and analytical methods or software.Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes show a high level of research waste, with multiple reviews covering identical or very similar groups of trials. Where multiple reviews exist on a topic, interpretation may require careful attention to apparently minor differences between reviews. Researchers can help readers by acknowledging existing reviews and through clear reporting of key decisions, especially on inclusion/exclusion and on statistical pooling.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Information on subgroup assessments in systematic reviews (SR) of atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. This review aims to describe subgroup analyses in AF SRs to inform the design of SRs and randomized trials as well as clinical practice. METHODS:We conducted a cross sectional meta-epidemiological study of Cochrane AF reviews by searching AF (including variants) in the title, abstract, or keyword field without date or language restrictions (Issue 9; September 2018). Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics to summarize frequency of subgroups pre-specified and conducted and report credibility of subgroup effects claimed. RESULTS:Of 39 Cochrane reviews identified, 17 met inclusion criteria (including 168 reports of 127 randomized trials) and the majority (16; 94.1%) conducted meta-analysis of outcomes. Most (13; 76.5%) planned pre-specified subgroup analyses; 7 of which (41.2%) conducted subgroups. In these 7 reviews, 56 subgroups were planned, 17 (30.4%) conducted and 6 (10.7%) yielded subgroup effects. Variables such as co-morbid disease, stroke risk factors, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, age, race, and sex represented 44% (24 subgroups) of all planned subgroups (8 conducted; 14.3%); however, information on covariate selection was lacking. Overall, more subgroups were planned than conducted (mean difference (95% CI) 2.3 (1.2-3.5, p?<?0.001)). Of all subgroups conducted, anticoagulant characteristics comprised a third of all subgroup effects (n?=?5, 35.7%). The credibility of subgroups identified (n?=?14) was assessed and less than half (43%) represented one of a small number of pre-specified hypothesis and rarely were effects seen within studies (7%). Of 5 reviews that reported subgroup effects, only 3 discussed subgroup effects as part of the overall conclusions; none discussed credibility of subgroup effects. CONCLUSIONS:This meta-epidemiological review of a subset of Cochrane AF reviews suggests that planning and reporting of subgroup analyses in AF reviews can be improved to better inform clinical management. Most pre-specified subgroup analyses were not performed, important variables (such as stroke, bleeding risk, and other comorbidities) were rarely examined and credibility of subgroup effects claimed was low. Future reviews should aim to identify important subgroups in their protocols and use recommended approaches to test subgroup effects in order to better support clinical decision-making.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether network meta-analyses, increasingly used to assess comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions, follow the key methodological recommendations for reporting and conduct of systematic reviews.DesignMethodological systematic review of reports of network meta-analyses.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Medline, and Embase, searched from inception to 12 July 2012.Review methodsAll network meta-analyses comparing clinical efficacy of three or more interventions based on randomised controlled trials, excluding meta-analyses with an open loop network of three interventions. We assessed the reporting of general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process using two composite outcomes. For some components, if reporting was adequate, we assessed their conduct quality.ResultsOf 121 network meta-analyses covering a wide range of medical areas, 100 (83%) assessed pharmacological interventions and 11 (9%) non-pharmacological interventions; 56 (46%) were published in journals with a high impact factor. The electronic search strategy for each database was not reported in 88 (73%) network meta-analyses; for 36 (30%), the primary outcome was not clearly identified. Overall, 61 (50%) network meta-analyses did not report any information regarding the assessment of risk of bias of individual studies, and 103 (85%) did not report any methods to assess the likelihood of publication bias. Overall, 87 (72%) network meta-analyses did not report the literature search, searched only one database, did not search other sources, or did not report an assessment of risk of bias of individual studies. These methodological components did not differ by publication in a general or specialty journal or by public or private funding.ConclusionsEssential methodological components of the systematic review process-conducting a literature search and assessing risk of bias of individual studies-are frequently lacking in reports of network meta-analyses, even when published in journals with high impact factors.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is growing interest in evaluating differences in healthcare interventions across routinely collected demographic characteristics. However, individual subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials are often not prespecified, adjusted for multiple testing, or conducted using the appropriate statistical test for interaction, and therefore frequently lack credibility. Meta-analyses can be used to examine the validity of potential subgroup differences by collating evidence across trials. Here, we characterize the conduct and clinical translation of age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane reviews. METHODS:For a random sample of 928 Cochrane intervention reviews of randomized trials, we determined how often subgroup analyses of age are reported, how often these analyses have a P?<?0.05 from formal interaction testing, how frequently subgroup differences first observed in an individual trial are later corroborated by other trials in the same meta-analysis, and how often statistically significant results are included in commonly used clinical management resources (BMJ Best Practice, UpToDate, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Google Scholar, and Google search). RESULTS:Among 928 Cochrane intervention reviews, 189 (20.4%) included plans to conduct age-treatment subgroup analyses. The vast majority (162 of 189, 85.7%) of the planned analyses were not conducted, commonly because of insufficient trial data. There were 22 reviews that conducted their planned age-treatment subgroup analyses, and another 3 reviews appeared to perform unplanned age-treatment subgroup analyses. These 25 (25 of 928, 2.7%) reviews conducted a total of 97 age-treatment subgroup analyses, of which 65 analyses (in 20 reviews) had non-overlapping subgroup levels. Among the 65 age-treatment subgroup analyses, 14 (21.5%) did not report any formal interaction testing. Seven (10.8%) reported P?<?0.05 from formal age-treatment interaction testing; however, none of these seven analyses were in reviews that discussed the potential biological rationale or clinical significance of the subgroup findings or had results that were included in common clinical practice resources. CONCLUSION:Age-treatment subgroup analyses in Cochrane intervention reviews were frequently planned but rarely conducted, and implications of detected interactions were not discussed in the reviews or mentioned in common clinical resources. When subgroup analyses are performed, authors should report the findings, compare the results to previous studies, and outline any potential impact on clinical care.