Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

Ref ID 933
First Author J. Luo
Journal BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2023
URL https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-023-01980-y
Keywords COVID
Low reporting quality
Low methodological quality
Living
Problem(s) Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
Number of systematic reviews included 64
Summary of Findings From 64 included living systematic reviews of COVID-19 indexed across Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) from inception until December 9, 2021, with additional searches conducted on May 13, 2022. 21.9% of the 64 living systematic reviews of COVID-19 were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low" methodological quality according to AMSTAR-2. For reporting quality (PRISMA 2020) "Certainty of evidence" had the worst reporting quality, with only 41% of COVID-19 reviews fully reporting it. The number of included studies, and registration were associated with AMSTAR-2 levels.
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? No