Scoping review of COVID-19-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses: can we really have confidence in their results?

Autor:	Wurth R; NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA., Hajdenberg M; College of Arts and Sciences, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA., Barrera FJ; Endocrinology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital 'Dr. Jose E. González', Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico.; Knowledge and Evaluation Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.; Plataforma INVEST-KER Unit Mayo Clinic (KER Unit Mexico), School of Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico., Shekhar S; NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.; Clinical Research Branch, NIEHS, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA., Copacino CE; Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA., Moreno-Peña PJ; Plataforma INVEST-KER Unit Mayo Clinic (KER Unit Mexico), School of Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico., Gharib OAM; NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA., Porter F; NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA., Hiremath S; University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada., Hall JE; Clinical Research Branch, NIEHS, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA., Schiffrin EL; McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Montreal, Québec, Canada., Eisenhofer G; Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany., Bornstein SR; Department of Medicine III, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany., Brito JP; Knowledge and Evaluation Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA., González-González JG; Endocrinology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital 'Dr. Jose E. González', Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico.; Plataforma INVEST-KER Unit Mayo Clinic (KER Unit Mexico), School of Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico., Stratakis CA; NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA., Rodríguez-Gutiérrez R; Endocrinology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital 'Dr. Jose E. González', Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico.; Knowledge and Evaluation Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.; Plataforma INVEST-KER Unit Mayo Clinic (KER Unit Mexico), School of Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico., Hannah-Shmouni F; NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA fady.hannah-shmouni@nih.gov.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Postgraduate medical journal [Postgrad Med J] 2022 May; Vol. 98 (1159), pp. 372-379. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Feb 26.
DOI:	10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-139392
Abstrakt:	Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically appraise the quality of a sample of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) and discuss internal validity threats affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence. Design: We conducted a scoping review of the literature. SRs with or without meta-analysis (MA) that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19 were included. Main Outcome Measures: We extracted quality characteristics guided by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 to calculate a qualitative score. Complementary evaluation of the most prominent published limitations affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence was performed. Results: A total of 63 SRs were included. The majority were judged as a critically low methodological quality. Most of the studies were not guided by a pre-established protocol (39, 62%). More than half (39, 62%) failed to address risk of bias when interpreting their results. A comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most SRs (54, 86%). Appropriate use of statistical methods was evident in nearly all SRs with MAs (39, 95%). Only 16 (33%) studies recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study, and 15 (24%) recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation. Conclusion: The methodological and reporting quality of current COVID-19 SR is far from optimal. In addition, most of the current SRs fail to address relevant threats to their internal validity, including repeated patients and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Adherence to proper study design and peer-review practices must remain to mitigate current limitations. Competing Interests: Competing interests: Nothing to disclose related to the work described in this article. The laboratory of CAS holds patents on the function of PRKAR1A, PDE11A and GPR101 molecules and has received research funding from Pfizer for work related to GPR101 and acromegaly/gigantism. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of this study, or the preparation of this manuscript. (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu