SynthesisIrish journal of medical science2022
Assessment of COVID-19-related meta-analysis reporting quality.
Synthesis in Irish journal of medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for COVID-19 Detection in Medical Imaging-Diagnostic Measures and Wasting-A Systematic Umbrella Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMeta-analysis of high-quality primary articles represents the top-quality evidence in medical literature. In this project, our aim was to assess the number and quality of COVID-related meta-analysis published since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsThe search included the period from January 1, 2020, when the beginning of primary articles on COVID-19, till October 31, 2020. We screened a total of 793 studies. We excluded non-meta-analytic non-COVID-19-related studies. We obtained different characteristics, and we determined the quality of reporting using the AMSTAR tool, an 11-items tool that assesses the content validity and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 538 studies were included in our assessment. The first meta-analysis included was published in March, while the last one was on the 31st of October. Upon comparing the mean AMSTAR score for meta-analysis published during each month, we found a significant difference (p < 0.001, F = 4.139), where the mean score almost steadily increased since March.
conclusionThe urge to publish during the COVID-19 period or any other surge in publishing should not be at the expense of quality.
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.