Observational studyBMC medical research methodology2022
Poor reporting quality of observational clinical studies comparing treatments of COVID-19 - a retrospective cross-sectional study.
Observational study in BMC medical research methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- COVID-19 treatment of hospital patients worldwide at the onset of the pandemic in 2020: a systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- An evaluation of STROBE reporting compliance in cross-sectional studies published in theJournal of Korean biological nursing science · 2026Review
- A data-driven approach to study temporal characteristics of COVID-19 infection and death Time Series for twelve countries across six continents.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Visualizing the target estimand in comparative effectiveness studies with multiple treatments.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2024Article
- Article
- A Systematic Review to Inform the Development of a Reporting Guideline for Concept Mapping Research.Methods and protocols · 2023Review
- Totality of evidence of the effectiveness of repurposed therapies for COVID-19: Can we use real-world studies alongside randomized controlled trials?Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- 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
backgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific world is in urgent need for new evidence on the treatment of COVID patients. The reporting quality is crucial for transparent scientific publication. Concerns of data integrity, methodology and transparency were raised. Here, we assessed the adherence of observational studies comparing treatments of COVID 19 to the STROBE checklist in 2020.
methodsDesign: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study.
settingWe conducted a systematic literature search in the Medline database. This study was performed at the RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology Participants: We extracted all observational studies on the treatment of COVID-19 patients from the year 2020.
main outcome measuresThe adherence of each publication to the STROBE checklist items was analysed. The journals' impact factor (IF), the country of origin, the kind of investigated treatment and the month of publication were assessed.
resultsWe analysed 147 observational studies and found a mean adherence of 45.6% to the STROBE checklist items. The percentage adherence per publication correlated significantly with the journals' IF (point estimate for the difference between 1
conclusionsWe conclude a poor reporting quality of observational studies on the treatment of COVID-19 throughout the year 2020. A considerable improvement is mandatory.
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.