Cargando…
Characteristics of systematic reviews evaluating treatments for COVID-19 registered in PROSPERO
Characteristics and research collaboration of registered systematic reviews (SRs) on treatment modalities for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. This study analysed research collaboration, interventions and outcome measures in registered SRs on COVID-19 treatments and pointed out th...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8267341/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34130770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268821001321 |
_version_ | 1783720128990412800 |
---|---|
author | Zhang, Ruinian Gao, Ya Xie, Dairong Lian, Rongna Tian, Jinhui |
author_facet | Zhang, Ruinian Gao, Ya Xie, Dairong Lian, Rongna Tian, Jinhui |
author_sort | Zhang, Ruinian |
collection | PubMed |
description | Characteristics and research collaboration of registered systematic reviews (SRs) on treatment modalities for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. This study analysed research collaboration, interventions and outcome measures in registered SRs on COVID-19 treatments and pointed out the relevant problems. PROSPERO (international prospective register of systematic reviews) was searched for SRs on COVID-19 treatments as of 2 June 2020. Excel 2016 was used for descriptive analyses of the extracted data. VOSviewer 1.6.14 software was used to generate network maps for collaborations between countries and institutions. A total of 189 SRs were included, which were registered by 301 institutions from 39 countries. China (69, 36.50%) exhibited the highest output. Cooperation between countries was not close enough. As an institution, the Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (7, 3.70%) had the highest output. There was close cooperation between institutions. Interventions included antiviral therapy (81, 42.86%), respiratory support (16, 8.47%), circulatory support (11, 5.82%), plasma therapy for convalescent patients (11, 5.82%), immunotherapy (9, 4.76%), TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) treatment (9, 4.76%), rehabilitation treatment (5, 2.65%), anti-inflammatory treatment (16, 8.47%) and other treatments (31, 16.40%). Concerning antiviral therapy (81, 42.86%), the most commonly used antiviral agents were chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (26, 13.76%), followed by remdesivir (12, 6.35%), lobinavir/ritonavir (11, 5.82%), favipiravir (5, 2.65%), ribavirin (5, 2.65%), interferon (5, 2.65%), abiron (4, 2.12%) and abidor (4, 2.12%). The most frequently used primary and secondary outcomes were the mortality rate (92, 48.68%) and hospital stay length (48, 25.40%), respectively. The expression of the outcomes was not standardised. Many COVID-19 SRs on treatment modalities have been registered, with a low completion rate. Although there was some collaboration between countries and institutions in the currently registered SRs on treatment modalities for COVID-19 on PROSPERO, cooperation between countries should be further enhanced. More attention should be directed towards identifying deficiencies of outcome measures, and the standardisation of results should be maximised. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8267341 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Cambridge University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82673412021-07-09 Characteristics of systematic reviews evaluating treatments for COVID-19 registered in PROSPERO Zhang, Ruinian Gao, Ya Xie, Dairong Lian, Rongna Tian, Jinhui Epidemiol Infect Original Paper Characteristics and research collaboration of registered systematic reviews (SRs) on treatment modalities for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. This study analysed research collaboration, interventions and outcome measures in registered SRs on COVID-19 treatments and pointed out the relevant problems. PROSPERO (international prospective register of systematic reviews) was searched for SRs on COVID-19 treatments as of 2 June 2020. Excel 2016 was used for descriptive analyses of the extracted data. VOSviewer 1.6.14 software was used to generate network maps for collaborations between countries and institutions. A total of 189 SRs were included, which were registered by 301 institutions from 39 countries. China (69, 36.50%) exhibited the highest output. Cooperation between countries was not close enough. As an institution, the Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (7, 3.70%) had the highest output. There was close cooperation between institutions. Interventions included antiviral therapy (81, 42.86%), respiratory support (16, 8.47%), circulatory support (11, 5.82%), plasma therapy for convalescent patients (11, 5.82%), immunotherapy (9, 4.76%), TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) treatment (9, 4.76%), rehabilitation treatment (5, 2.65%), anti-inflammatory treatment (16, 8.47%) and other treatments (31, 16.40%). Concerning antiviral therapy (81, 42.86%), the most commonly used antiviral agents were chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (26, 13.76%), followed by remdesivir (12, 6.35%), lobinavir/ritonavir (11, 5.82%), favipiravir (5, 2.65%), ribavirin (5, 2.65%), interferon (5, 2.65%), abiron (4, 2.12%) and abidor (4, 2.12%). The most frequently used primary and secondary outcomes were the mortality rate (92, 48.68%) and hospital stay length (48, 25.40%), respectively. The expression of the outcomes was not standardised. Many COVID-19 SRs on treatment modalities have been registered, with a low completion rate. Although there was some collaboration between countries and institutions in the currently registered SRs on treatment modalities for COVID-19 on PROSPERO, cooperation between countries should be further enhanced. More attention should be directed towards identifying deficiencies of outcome measures, and the standardisation of results should be maximised. Cambridge University Press 2021-04-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8267341/ /pubmed/34130770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268821001321 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Paper Zhang, Ruinian Gao, Ya Xie, Dairong Lian, Rongna Tian, Jinhui Characteristics of systematic reviews evaluating treatments for COVID-19 registered in PROSPERO |
title | Characteristics of systematic reviews evaluating treatments for COVID-19 registered in PROSPERO |
title_full | Characteristics of systematic reviews evaluating treatments for COVID-19 registered in PROSPERO |
title_fullStr | Characteristics of systematic reviews evaluating treatments for COVID-19 registered in PROSPERO |
title_full_unstemmed | Characteristics of systematic reviews evaluating treatments for COVID-19 registered in PROSPERO |
title_short | Characteristics of systematic reviews evaluating treatments for COVID-19 registered in PROSPERO |
title_sort | characteristics of systematic reviews evaluating treatments for covid-19 registered in prospero |
topic | Original Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8267341/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34130770 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268821001321 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhangruinian characteristicsofsystematicreviewsevaluatingtreatmentsforcovid19registeredinprospero AT gaoya characteristicsofsystematicreviewsevaluatingtreatmentsforcovid19registeredinprospero AT xiedairong characteristicsofsystematicreviewsevaluatingtreatmentsforcovid19registeredinprospero AT lianrongna characteristicsofsystematicreviewsevaluatingtreatmentsforcovid19registeredinprospero AT tianjinhui characteristicsofsystematicreviewsevaluatingtreatmentsforcovid19registeredinprospero |