- Framework of problems / Objective
- Interpreted without considering certainty or overall quality of the evidence base
- 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 |