Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33657455›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical epidemiology2021

Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping.

Yanfei Li, Liujiao Cao, Ziyao Zhang, Liangying Hou, Yu Qin, Xu Hui, Jing Li, Haitong Zhao, Gecheng Cui, Xudong Cui and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing papers in PubMed, 23 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

53 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Yanfei LiEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Liujiao CaoEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Ziyao ZhangSchool of Foreign Language, Lanzhou University of Arts and Science, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Liangying HouEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yu QinKey Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Xu HuiEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Jing LiEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Haitong ZhaoEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Gecheng CuiEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Xudong CuiInstitute of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Rui LiEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Qingling LinDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, The First Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Xiuxia LiEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. Electronic address: lixiuxia@lzu.edu.cn.
Kehu YangEvidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. Electronic address: kehuyangebm2006@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingA structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID-19 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP from inception until June 2020. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.

resultsIn total, 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, over 50% of which (128, 52.7%) were from 14 developing countries, with China contributing the most reviews (76, 31.3%). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, 30 (12.3%) were of moderate quality, 63 (25.9%) were of low quality, and 150 (61.7%) were of critically low quality. In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 14 (10-18). Regarding the topics of the reviews, 24 (9.9%) focused on the prevalence of COVID-19, 69 (28.4%) focused on the clinical manifestations, 30 (12.3%) focused on etiology, 43 (17.7%) focused on diagnosis, 65 (26.7%) focused on treatment, 104 (42.8%) focused on prognosis, and 25 (10.3%) focused on prevention. These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID-19 (161, 66.3%), followed by children (22, 9.1%) and pregnant patients (18, 7.4%).

conclusionThis study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations.

Indexed as

InternationalityCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleResearch DesignSARS-CoV-2Systematic Reviews as TopicCOVID-19Evidence mappingGap mapMethodological qualityReporting qualitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33657455
PMCPMC8313077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.