Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul 31;23(1):175.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-01980-y.

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

Jiefeng Luo #  1   2   3   4   5 , Zhe Chen #  1   2   3   4   5 , Dan Liu  1   2   3   4   5 , Hailong Li  1   2   3   4 , Siyi He  1   2   3   4   5 , Linan Zeng  1   2   3   4 , Mengting Yang  1   2   3   4   6 , Zheng Liu  1   2   3   4   6 , Xue Xiao  7   8 , Lingli Zhang  9   10   11   12
Affiliations

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

Jiefeng Luo et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Objectives: The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

Methods: Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

Results: A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

Conclusions: Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Keywords: Coronavirus disease 2019; Living systematic review; Methodological quality; Reporting quality; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of screening
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
AMSTAR-2 levels distribution
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Heat map of AMSTAR-2
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Proportion of “yes” for each item in PRISMA 2020 Statement
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Heat map of PRISMA 2020 statement
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Comparison of the proportion of "yes" in each domain between this study and A. Akl's study for AMSTAR-2
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lu H, Stratton CW, Tang YW. Outbreak of pneumonia of unknown etiology in Wuhan, China: The mystery and the miracle. J Med Virol. 2020;92(4):401–402. doi: 10.1002/jmv.25678. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. WHO[homepage on the Internet]. Naming the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the virus that causes it. 2020–02–11; Available from:https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technica..., 2022–05–09.
    1. World Health Organization[homepage on the Internet]. WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard. 2022; Available from:https://covid19.who.int/. Accessed 03–09, 2022.
    1. Zarocostas J. How to fight an infodemic. Lancet (London, England) 2020;395(10225):676. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Casigliani V, De Nard F, De Vita E, et al. Too much information, too little evidence: is waste in research fuelling the covid-19 infodemic? BMJ. 2020;370:m2672. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m2672. - DOI - PubMed
-