Cargando…

Calidad de las revisiones sistemáticas de COVID-19 en personas con diabetes: una revisión sistemática

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the methodological quality of published systematic reviews of factors associated with COVID-19 in people with diabetes. METHOD: Systematic review with registration protocol in PROSPERO, under the number CRD42020222418. Searches were carried out from October to November 2020...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Santos-Marques, Jaciane, de Oliveira-Meneses, Marilyse, Tavares-Gomes, Aline, Leite Rangel-Andrade, Elaine Maria, Martinez-Riera, José Ramón, Lopes e Silva-Júnior, Fernando
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier España, S.L.U. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9222019/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35765372
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcli.2022.06.003
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To investigate the methodological quality of published systematic reviews of factors associated with COVID-19 in people with diabetes. METHOD: Systematic review with registration protocol in PROSPERO, under the number CRD42020222418. Searches were carried out from October to November 2020 in the databases of the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, Embase and Cochrane Library, in addition to searching the reference list of the selected studies. Systematic review studies with or without meta-analysis and without date and language restrictions were included. Data were extracted in a standardized way and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scale. RESULTS: Twelve reviews, published between 2020 and 2021, with a predominance of the English language, systematic reviews of observational studies with meta-analysis with a sample ranging from 6 to 83 studies, were included. Regarding financing, most of the study reported did not receive this type of support. Regarding to the assessment of the methodological quality of the studies, 3 were of moderate quality, 5 were classified as low quality and 3 with critically low quality. CONCLUSIONS: The analyzed articles presented a bias in the preparation of reports on their studies, suggesting the need to use mechanisms to improve adherence to the established reporting guidelines and methodological evaluation tools.