Cargando…

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

PURPOSE: The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Da...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Zhe, Luo, Jiefeng, Li, Siyu, Xu, Peipei, Zeng, Linan, Yu, Qin, Zhang, Lingli
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9359410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35958161
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S367339
_version_ 1784764134866288640
author Chen, Zhe
Luo, Jiefeng
Li, Siyu
Xu, Peipei
Zeng, Linan
Yu, Qin
Zhang, Lingli
author_facet Chen, Zhe
Luo, Jiefeng
Li, Siyu
Xu, Peipei
Zeng, Linan
Yu, Qin
Zhang, Lingli
author_sort Chen, Zhe
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode. CONCLUSION: Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9359410
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93594102022-08-10 Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19 Chen, Zhe Luo, Jiefeng Li, Siyu Xu, Peipei Zeng, Linan Yu, Qin Zhang, Lingli Clin Epidemiol Original Research PURPOSE: The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed. RESULTS: Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode. CONCLUSION: Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19. Dove 2022-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9359410/ /pubmed/35958161 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S367339 Text en © 2022 Chen et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Chen, Zhe
Luo, Jiefeng
Li, Siyu
Xu, Peipei
Zeng, Linan
Yu, Qin
Zhang, Lingli
Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19
title Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19
title_full Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19
title_fullStr Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19
title_full_unstemmed Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19
title_short Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19
title_sort characteristics of living systematic review for covid-19
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9359410/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35958161
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S367339
work_keys_str_mv AT chenzhe characteristicsoflivingsystematicreviewforcovid19
AT luojiefeng characteristicsoflivingsystematicreviewforcovid19
AT lisiyu characteristicsoflivingsystematicreviewforcovid19
AT xupeipei characteristicsoflivingsystematicreviewforcovid19
AT zenglinan characteristicsoflivingsystematicreviewforcovid19
AT yuqin characteristicsoflivingsystematicreviewforcovid19
AT zhanglingli characteristicsoflivingsystematicreviewforcovid19