SynthesisJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2021
Methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19: A meta-epidemiological study.
Synthesis in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comprehensive Meta-Review of Global Impacts, Responses, and Future Preparedness.The clinical respiratory journal · 2025Pooled 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
- Synthesizing evidence from the earliest studies to support decision-making: To what extent could the evidence be reliable?Research synthesis methods · 2022Pooled it
- Methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19: A meta-epidemiological study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Risk of bias and low reproducibility in meta-analytic evidence from fast-tracked publications during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Data extraction error in pharmaceutical versus non-pharmaceutical interventions for evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a crossover trial.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023Article
- Are COVID-19 systematic reviews up to date and can we tell? A cross-sectional study.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Perspectives on the production, and use, of rapid evidence in decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Characteristics of registered and published systematic reviews focusing on the prevention of COVID-19: a meta-research study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Neurological, Psychiatric, and Psychological Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for a Large-Scale Umbrella Review of Observational Studies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Patient-important outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments for COVID-19: a protocol of a META-epidemiological study.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND
objectivesCOVID-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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsWe 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 I
conclusionsThe 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.
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.