Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping.
Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.021
复制
发表时间：
2021-07
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Yang K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Li Y;Cao L;Zhang Z;Hou L;Qin Y;Hui X;Li J;Zhao H;Cui G;Cui X;Li R;Lin Q;Li X;Yang K
评估COVID-19系统评价的报告质量和方法学质量，并使用证据制图方法分析评价的质量、临床主题、作者国家和人群方面的趋势和差距。使用PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Campbell Library、Web of Science、CBM、万方数据、中国知网和CQVIP从成立到2020年6月对有关COVID-19的系统评价进行结构化检索。使用多重系统评价评估2 （AMSTAR 2）清单和系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目（PRISMA）清单对每个评价的质量进行评估。总共有243篇系统评价符合纳入标准，其中超过50%（128,52.7%）来自14个发展中国家，其中中国贡献最多（76,31.3%）。在方法学质量方面，30项研究（12.3%）为中等质量，63项（25.9%）为低质量，150项（61.7%）为极低质量。在报告质量方面，PRISMA评分中位数（四分位数范围）为14（10-18）。在综述的主题方面，24篇（9.9%）聚焦于COVID-19的流行，69篇（28.4%）聚焦于临床表现，30篇（12.3%）聚焦于病因，43篇（17.7%）聚焦于诊断，65篇（26.7%）聚焦于治疗，104篇（42.8%）聚焦于预后，25篇（10.3%）聚焦于预防。这些研究以普通患者为主（161例，66.3%），其次是儿童（22例，9.1%）和孕妇（18例，7.4%）。本研究系统地评估了COVID-19系统综述的方法和报告质量，总结和分析了其临床主题、作者国家和研究人群的趋势。
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. 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. 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%). 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.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
14.6
作者：
Liu, Wei;Zhou, Pengxiang;Zhai, Suodi
通讯作者：
Zhai, Suodi
影响因子：
4
作者：
Ballesteros M;Montero N;López-Pousa A;Urrútia G;Solà I;Rada G;Pardo-Hernandez H;Bonfill X
通讯作者：
Bonfill X
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Gao, Chuang;Liu, Baoyi;Wu, Zhouwei
通讯作者：
Wu, Zhouwei
影响因子：
5.2
作者：
Lu, Cuncun;Li, Xiuxia;Yang, Kehu
通讯作者：
Yang, Kehu
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.j4008
发表时间：
2017-09-21
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Shea BJ;Reeves BC;Wells G;Thuku M;Hamel C;Moran J;Moher D;Tugwell P;Welch V;Kristjansson E;Henry DA
通讯作者：
Henry DA