ArticleJournal of medical virology2020
Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews on COVID-19: A comparative study of previous coronavirus outbreaks.
Article in Journal of medical virology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Methodological quality of network meta-analyses of Chinese herbal medicine could be improved: an evidence mapping.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- Identifying patterns of reported findings on long-term cardiac complications of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Assessment of COVID-19-related meta-analysis reporting quality.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Pooled it
- Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19 in people with diabetes: A systematic review.Enfermeria clinicaPooled it
- [Quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19 in people with diabetes: A systematic review].Enfermeria clinicaPooled it
- Artificial Intelligence for COVID-19 Detection in Medical Imaging-Diagnostic Measures and Wasting-A Systematic Umbrella Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Transparency: A central principle underpinning trustworthy guidelines.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- COVID-19 pandemic spread against countries' non-pharmaceutical interventions responses: a data-mining driven comparative study.BMC public health · 2021Article
- The quality of systematic reviews and other synthesis in the time of COVID-19.Epidemiology and infection · 2021Article
- Strengthening the incentives for responsible research practices in Australian health and medical research funding.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Optimizing peer review to minimize the risk of retracting COVID-19-related literature.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2021Article
- Gastrointestinal and hepatic manifestations of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Article
- Mental health research in response to the COVID-19, Ebola, and H1N1 outbreaks: A comparative bibliometric analysis.Journal of psychiatric research · 2021Article
- Neurological manifestations of COVID-19 infection: an umbrella review.The Egyptian journal of neurology, psychiatry and neurosurgery · 2021Review
- COVID-19 and literature evidence: should we publish anything and everything?Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Review
- "Questionable" peer review in the publishing pandemic during the time of COVID-19: implications for policy makers and stakeholders.Croatian medical journal · 2020Article
- Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews on COVID-19: A comparative study of previous coronavirus outbreaks.Journal of medical virology · 2020Article
- A publishing pandemic during the COVID-19 pandemic: how challenging can it become?Croatian medical journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted on the COVID-19 outbreak, which together with the SRs on previous coronavirus outbreaks, form important sources of evidence for clinical decision and policy making. Here, we investigated the methodological quality of SRs on COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). Online searches were performed to obtain SRs on COVID-19, SARS, and MERS. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. In total, of 49 SRs that were finally included in our study, 17, 16, and 16 SRs were specifically on COVID-19, MERS, and SARS, respectively. The growth rate of SRs on COVID-19 was the highest (4.54/month) presently. Of the included SRs, 6, 12, and 31 SRs were of moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. SRs on SARS showed the optimum quality among the SRs on the three diseases. Subgroup analyses showed that the SR topic (P < .001), the involvement of a methodologist (P < .001), and funding support (P = .046) were significantly associated with the methodological quality of the SR. According to the adherence scores, adherence to AMSTAR-2 items sequentially decreased in SRs on SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. The methodological quality of most SRs on coronavirus outbreaks is unsatisfactory, and those on COVID-19 have higher risks of poor quality, despite the rapid actions taken to conduct SRs. The quality of SRs should be improved in the future. Readers must exercise caution in accepting and using the results of these SRs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.