Assessment of Duplicate Evidence in Systematic Reviews of Imaging Findings of Children with COVID-19

Ref ID 793
First Author G. Perez-Gaxiola
Journal JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Year Of Publishing 2021
URL https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774703
Keywords COVID
Paediatrics
Radiology
Currency
Non-Cochrane reviews
Overlapping reviews/redundancy
Problem(s) Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies
No registered or published protocol
Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
Insufficient literature searches
Number of systematic reviews included 25
Summary of Findings From 25 included systematic reviews identified from the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) project, including 17 primary studies of imaging findings of children with COVID-19 published up to September 01, 2020. Only 6 of the 25 systematic reviews identified (24%) had been previously registered in PROSPERO or other registries. The number of primary studies identified by each particular review ranged from 1 to 9. The author's own literature search found 11 eligible primary studies that were not identified by any of the reviews. The most recent review with the largest number of included studies had only 9 of 28 articles (32%) that were eligible according to the authors' analysis. The authors explored whether this review explicitly excluded these studies or whether there were additional criteria explaining why they were not included. Four studies (21%) were probably missed during the review process, and the other 15 (79%) were published after their search.
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? Yes