ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2022
Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Three out of four published systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatments were not registered and one-third of those registered were published: a meta-research study.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Pooled it
- Exploring duplication in reviews of Long COVID: 2020-2023.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Evidence surveillance for a living clinical guideline: Case study of the Australian stroke guidelines.Health information and libraries journal · 2025Article
- Natural product extracts for ischemic stroke: a methodological evaluation and meta-epidemiological analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
- Methods for conducting a living evidence profile on mpox: An evidence map of the literature.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Learning health systems and evidence ecosystems: a perspective on the future of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based guideline development.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Is a one-size-fits-all '12-month rule' appropriate when it comes to the last search date in systematic reviews?BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- The importance of meta-research in dentistry.Evidence-based dentistry · 2023Article
- Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- Are COVID-19 systematic reviews up to date and can we tell? A cross-sectional study.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Definition, harms, and prevention of redundant systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Extent and nature of duplication in PROSPERO using COVID-19-related registrations: a retrospective investigation and survey.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Lessons from SARS‑CoV‑2 and its variants (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingIn this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints).
resultsWe included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4-57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth.
conclusionThere was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication.
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.