The reporting completeness and transparency of systematic reviews of prognostic prediction models for COVID-19 was poor: a methodological overview of systematic reviews

Ref ID 1067
First Author P. Talimtzi
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2024
URL https://www-sciencedirect-com.sheffield.idm.oclc.org/science/article/pii/S0895435624000192?via%3Dihub
Keywords COVID
Risk of bias
Low reporting quality
Problem(s) Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
High risk of bias (ROBIS)
Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE)
No registered or published protocol
Number of systematic reviews included 10
Summary of Findings There were 10 included SRs with a total of 507 distinct PPMs; none of the SRs synthesized the results in a meta-analysis. Only a third of the PPMs were externally validated (186/507 = 36.7%) and most (n = 272, 53.6%) were used to predict mortality. The reporting assessments showed that most of the studies did not have a predefined protocol (7/10, 70.0%) and most had missing information on study selection, the data collection process, and reporting of primary studies and models included, while only one SR had its data publicly available. In addition, for the majority of the SRs (8/10, 80%), the overall risk of bias was judged as being high.
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?