- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
- Systematic reviews of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 continue to be poorly conducted and reported: a systematic review
| Ref ID | 914 |
| First Author | R. Whear |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435622001780?via%3Dihub |
| Keywords |
COVID Low reporting quality Non-Cochrane reviews Overlapping reviews/redundancy Low methodological quality |
| Problem(s) |
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed Low reporting (PRISMA) quality Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality No registered or published protocol Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 51 |
| Summary of Findings | From 51 included systematic reviews of the effectiveness of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 indexed in the Epistemonikos database in June 2021. There was considerable duplication of effort; multiple reviews were conducted at the same time with inconsistencies in the evidence included. The reviews were of low methodological quality, poorly reported, and did not adhere to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidance. The AMSTAR-2 items that were least reported were: no available protocol (69%), authors not providing a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions (80%), and authors not reporting on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review (88%). |
| 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 |