- Framework of problems / Objective
- Inconclusive or lack of recommendations
- Clinical and methodological implications for research elements in systematic reviews on COVID-19 treatment were often unstructured and under-reported: a metaresearch study
Ref ID | 1060 |
First Author | W. Siemens |
Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2024 |
URL | https://www-sciencedirect-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0895435623003268?via%3Dihub |
Keywords |
COVID Certainty |
Problem(s) |
Inconclusive or lack of recommendations Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base |
Number of systematic reviews included | 326 |
Summary of Findings | Of the 326 included SRs, of which 284 SRs (87.1%) stated IfR. Of these 284 SRs, 201 (70.8%) reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and 66 (23.2%) using GRADE. IfR statements (n = 284) addressing PICO were unstructured and commonly reported ‘population’ (n = 195, 68.7%), ‘intervention’ (n = 242, 85.2%), and ‘outcome’ (n = 127, 44.7%) but not ‘control’ (n = 29, 10.2%). Concepts underlying GRADE domains were infrequently reported in IfR statements of SRs (n = 284): ‘risk of bias’ (n = 14, 4.9%), ‘imprecision’ (n = 8, 2.8%), ‘inconsistency’ (n = 7, 2.5%), ‘publication bias’ (n = 3, 1.1%), and ‘indirectness’ (n = 1, 0.4%). |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? |