Cargando…
Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study
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-1...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10388517/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37525117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01980-y |
_version_ | 1785082136208867328 |
---|---|
author | Luo, Jiefeng Chen, Zhe Liu, Dan Li, Hailong He, Siyi Zeng, Linan Yang, Mengting Liu, Zheng Xiao, Xue Zhang, Lingli |
author_facet | Luo, Jiefeng Chen, Zhe Liu, Dan Li, Hailong He, Siyi Zeng, Linan Yang, Mengting Liu, Zheng Xiao, Xue Zhang, Lingli |
author_sort | Luo, Jiefeng |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-01980-y. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10388517 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103885172023-08-01 Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study Luo, Jiefeng Chen, Zhe Liu, Dan Li, Hailong He, Siyi Zeng, Linan Yang, Mengting Liu, Zheng Xiao, Xue Zhang, Lingli BMC Med Res Methodol Research 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-023-01980-y. BioMed Central 2023-07-31 /pmc/articles/PMC10388517/ /pubmed/37525117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01980-y Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Luo, Jiefeng Chen, Zhe Liu, Dan Li, Hailong He, Siyi Zeng, Linan Yang, Mengting Liu, Zheng Xiao, Xue Zhang, Lingli Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study |
title | Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study |
title_full | Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study |
title_fullStr | Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study |
title_full_unstemmed | Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study |
title_short | Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study |
title_sort | methodological quality and reporting quality of covid-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10388517/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37525117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-01980-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT luojiefeng methodologicalqualityandreportingqualityofcovid19livingsystematicreviewacrosssectionalstudy AT chenzhe methodologicalqualityandreportingqualityofcovid19livingsystematicreviewacrosssectionalstudy AT liudan methodologicalqualityandreportingqualityofcovid19livingsystematicreviewacrosssectionalstudy AT lihailong methodologicalqualityandreportingqualityofcovid19livingsystematicreviewacrosssectionalstudy AT hesiyi methodologicalqualityandreportingqualityofcovid19livingsystematicreviewacrosssectionalstudy AT zenglinan methodologicalqualityandreportingqualityofcovid19livingsystematicreviewacrosssectionalstudy AT yangmengting methodologicalqualityandreportingqualityofcovid19livingsystematicreviewacrosssectionalstudy AT liuzheng methodologicalqualityandreportingqualityofcovid19livingsystematicreviewacrosssectionalstudy AT xiaoxue methodologicalqualityandreportingqualityofcovid19livingsystematicreviewacrosssectionalstudy AT zhanglingli methodologicalqualityandreportingqualityofcovid19livingsystematicreviewacrosssectionalstudy |