Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul:135:17-28.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.021. Epub 2021 Feb 28.

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

Yanfei Li  1 , Liujiao Cao  1 , Ziyao Zhang  2 , Liangying Hou  1 , Yu Qin  3 , Xu Hui  1 , Jing Li  1 , Haitong Zhao  1 , Gecheng Cui  1 , Xudong Cui  4 , Rui Li  1 , Qingling Lin  5 , Xiuxia Li  6 , Kehu Yang  7
Affiliations

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

Yanfei Li et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jul.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: COVID-19; Evidence mapping; Gap map; Methodological quality; Reporting quality; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the literature screening process and results.
Fig 2
Fig. 2
Trends in publishing countries (A) and study populations (B) of COVID-19 SRs. SRs, systematic reviews.
Fig 3
Fig. 3
Methodological quality of COVID-19 SRs. A represents how the methodological quality of COVID-19 SRs changes with the date of publication. B represents adherence of individual items of COVID-19 SRs assessed by the AMSTAR-2 checklist. SRs, systematic reviews; AMSTAR-2, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2.
Fig 4
Fig. 4
Reporting quality of COVID-19 SRs. A represents the PRISMA scores of COVID-19 SRs. B represents adherence of individual items of COVID-19 SRs assessed by the PRISMA checklist. SRs, systematic reviews; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Fig 5
Fig. 5
Mapping of COVID-19 SRs. Each bubble represents one SR and different colors represent various research populations. The bubble size represents the number of original studies included in the SRs. The reporting quality is represented on the X-axis, whereas the methodological quality is represented on the Y-axis. SR, systematic review. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. WHO. WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. Available at https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-re... 19—11-march-2020. Accessed September, 6 2020.
    1. Lu L, Li F, Wen H, Ge S, Zeng J, Luo W, et al. An evidence mapping and analysis of registered COVID-19 clinical trials in China. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):167. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Glasziou PP, Sanders S, Hoffmann T. Waste in Covid-19 research. BMJ (Clinical Res Ed) 2020;369:m1847. - PubMed
    1. Wallace J, Byrne C, Clarke M. Making evidence more wanted: a systematic review of facilitators to enhance the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Int J Evid Based Healthcare. 2012;10(4):338–346. - PubMed
    1. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 2015;350:g7647. - PubMed

Publication types