Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping.

Authors:

Yanfei Li Liujiao Cao Ziyao Zhang Liangying Hou Yu Qin Xu Hui Jing Li Haitong Zhao Gecheng Cui Xudong Cui Rui Li Qingling Lin Xiuxia Li Kehu Yang

J Clin Epidemiol 2021 Feb 28;135:17-28. Epub 2021 Feb 28.

Evidence Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China; Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. Electronic address:

Objectives: To assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews, and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality, clinical topics, author countries, and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach.

Study Design And Setting: A structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID-19 was performed using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI, and CQVIP from inception until June 2020. The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.

Results: In total, 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, over 50% of which (128, 52.7%) were from 14 developing countries, with China contributing the most reviews (76, 31.3%). In terms of methodological quality of the studies, 30 (12.3%) were of moderate quality, 63 (25.9%) were of low quality, and 150 (61.7%) were of critically low quality. In terms of reporting quality, the median (interquartile range) PRISMA score was 14 (10-18). Regarding the topics of the reviews, 24 (9.9%) focused on the prevalence of COVID-19, 69 (28.4%) focused on the clinical manifestations, 30 (12.3%) focused on etiology, 43 (17.7%) focused on diagnosis, 65 (26.7%) focused on treatment, 104 (42.8%) focused on prognosis, and 25 (10.3%) focused on prevention. These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID-19 (161, 66.3%), followed by children (22, 9.1%) and pregnant patients (18, 7.4%).

Conclusion: This study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations.