tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
BMC Infect Dis
. 2021 Jun 4;21(1):525.
doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4.
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews
Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Dónal P O'Mathúna[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Thilo Caspar von Groote[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Ishanka Weerasekara[SUP] 7 8 [/SUP], Ana Marusic[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Livia Puljak[SUP] 10 [/SUP], Vinicius Tassoni Civile[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Irena Zakarija-Grkovic[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Tina Poklepovic Pericic[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Alvaro Nagib Atallah[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Santino Filoso[SUP] 12 [/SUP], Nicola Luigi Bragazzi[SUP] 13 [/SUP], Milena Soriano Marcolino[SUP] 1 [/SUP], International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19)
Affiliations
Abstract
Background: Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.
Methods: Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes.
Results: Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as "critically low". Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%.
Conclusions: In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was "critically low". Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.
Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus; Evidence-based medicine; Infectious diseases; SARS-Cov-2.
. 2021 Jun 4;21(1):525.
doi: 10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4.
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews
Israel Júnior Borges do Nascimento[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Dónal P O'Mathúna[SUP] 3 4 [/SUP], Thilo Caspar von Groote[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Hebatullah Mohamed Abdulazeem[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Ishanka Weerasekara[SUP] 7 8 [/SUP], Ana Marusic[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Livia Puljak[SUP] 10 [/SUP], Vinicius Tassoni Civile[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Irena Zakarija-Grkovic[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Tina Poklepovic Pericic[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Alvaro Nagib Atallah[SUP] 11 [/SUP], Santino Filoso[SUP] 12 [/SUP], Nicola Luigi Bragazzi[SUP] 13 [/SUP], Milena Soriano Marcolino[SUP] 1 [/SUP], International Network of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (InterNetCOVID-19)
Affiliations
- PMID: 34088271
- DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06214-4
Abstract
Background: Navigating the rapidly growing body of scientific literature on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is challenging, and ongoing critical appraisal of this output is essential. We aimed to summarize and critically appraise systematic reviews of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in humans that were available at the beginning of the pandemic.
Methods: Nine databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Sciences, PDQ-Evidence, WHO's Global Research, LILACS, and Epistemonikos) were searched from December 1, 2019, to March 24, 2020. Systematic reviews analyzing primary studies of COVID-19 were included. Two authors independently undertook screening, selection, extraction (data on clinical symptoms, prevalence, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, diagnostic test assessment, laboratory, and radiological findings), and quality assessment (AMSTAR 2). A meta-analysis was performed of the prevalence of clinical outcomes.
Results: Eighteen systematic reviews were included; one was empty (did not identify any relevant study). Using AMSTAR 2, confidence in the results of all 18 reviews was rated as "critically low". Identified symptoms of COVID-19 were (range values of point estimates): fever (82-95%), cough with or without sputum (58-72%), dyspnea (26-59%), myalgia or muscle fatigue (29-51%), sore throat (10-13%), headache (8-12%) and gastrointestinal complaints (5-9%). Severe symptoms were more common in men. Elevated C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase, and slightly elevated aspartate and alanine aminotransferase, were commonly described. Thrombocytopenia and elevated levels of procalcitonin and cardiac troponin I were associated with severe disease. A frequent finding on chest imaging was uni- or bilateral multilobar ground-glass opacity. A single review investigated the impact of medication (chloroquine) but found no verifiable clinical data. All-cause mortality ranged from 0.3 to 13.9%.
Conclusions: In this overview of systematic reviews, we analyzed evidence from the first 18 systematic reviews that were published after the emergence of COVID-19. However, confidence in the results of all reviews was "critically low". Thus, systematic reviews that were published early on in the pandemic were of questionable usefulness. Even during public health emergencies, studies and systematic reviews should adhere to established methodological standards.
Keywords: COVID-19; Coronavirus; Evidence-based medicine; Infectious diseases; SARS-Cov-2.