ArticleSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
Systematic reviews on interventions for COVID-19 have rarely graded the certainty of the evidence.
Article in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous systematic reviews on coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) treatment have been developed to provide syntheses of the large volume of primary studies. However, the methodological quality of most of these reviews is questionable and the results provided may therefore present bias.
objectiveTo investigate how many systematic reviews on the therapeutic or preventive options for COVID-19 assessed the certainty of the evidence through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
methodsWe conducted a sensitive search in MEDLINE (via PubMed) and included all systematic reviews that assessed any intervention for COVID-19. The systematic reviews included were examined to identify any planned and/or actual assessment using the GRADE approach (or absence thereof) regarding the certainty of the evidence.
resultsWe included 177 systematic reviews and found that only 37 (21%; 37/177) assessed and reported the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. This number reduced to 27 (16.2%; 27/167) when Cochrane reviews (n = 10), in which an evaluation using GRADE is mandatory, were excluded.
conclusionMost of the systematic reviews on interventions relating to COVID-19 omitted assessment of the certainty of the evidence. This is a critical methodological omission that must not be overlooked in further research, so as to improve the impact and usefulness of syntheses relating to 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.