tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
BMC Med Res Methodol
. 2023 Jul 31;23(1):175.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01980-y. Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study
Jiefeng Luo[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 2 3 4 5 [/SUP], Zhe Chen[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 2 3 4 5 [/SUP], Dan Liu[SUP] 1 2 3 4 5 [/SUP], Hailong Li[SUP] 1 2 3 4 [/SUP], Siyi He[SUP] 1 2 3 4 5 [/SUP], Linan Zeng[SUP] 1 2 3 4 [/SUP], Mengting Yang[SUP] 1 2 3 4 6 [/SUP], Zheng Liu[SUP] 1 2 3 4 6 [/SUP], Xue Xiao[SUP] 7 8 [/SUP], Lingli Zhang[SUP] 9 10 11 12 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Objectives: The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.
Methods: Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.
Results: A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.
Conclusions: Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.
Keywords: Coronavirus disease 2019; Living systematic review; Methodological quality; Reporting quality; Systematic review.
. 2023 Jul 31;23(1):175.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01980-y. Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study
Jiefeng Luo[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 2 3 4 5 [/SUP], Zhe Chen[SUP] #[/SUP][SUP] 1 2 3 4 5 [/SUP], Dan Liu[SUP] 1 2 3 4 5 [/SUP], Hailong Li[SUP] 1 2 3 4 [/SUP], Siyi He[SUP] 1 2 3 4 5 [/SUP], Linan Zeng[SUP] 1 2 3 4 [/SUP], Mengting Yang[SUP] 1 2 3 4 6 [/SUP], Zheng Liu[SUP] 1 2 3 4 6 [/SUP], Xue Xiao[SUP] 7 8 [/SUP], Lingli Zhang[SUP] 9 10 11 12 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 37525117
- DOI: 10.1186/s12874-023-01980-y
Objectives: The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.
Methods: Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.
Results: A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.
Conclusions: Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.
Keywords: Coronavirus disease 2019; Living systematic review; Methodological quality; Reporting quality; Systematic review.