ArticleJournal of evidence-based medicine2021
The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID-19: An analysis of PROSPERO records.
Article in Journal of evidence-based medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevalence of soil-transmitted helminth infections in HIV patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- COVID-19 Public Health Measures and Patient and Public Involvement in Health and Social Care Research: An Umbrella Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Pooled it
- Three out of four published systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatments were not registered and one-third of those registered were published: a meta-research study.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic reviews of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 continue to be poorly conducted and reported: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Setting new research in the context of previous research: some options.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- The importance of meta-research in dentistry.Evidence-based dentistry · 2023Article
- Reporting quality of scoping reviews in dental public health.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Review
- A suggested data structure for transparent and repeatable reporting of bibliographic searching.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Review
- Characteristics of registered and published systematic reviews focusing on the prevention of COVID-19: a meta-research study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19.Clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- The true meaning of DICE: don't ignore chance effects.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2021Article
- The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID-19: An analysis of PROSPERO records.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis 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.
methodsThe 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.
resultsWe 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%).
conclusionA 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.
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.