- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
- 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 |