The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID-19: An analysis of PROSPERO records

Lara Dotto; Mateus de Azevedo Kinalski; Pablo Soares Machado; Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira; Rafael Sarkis-Onofre; Mateus Bertolini Fernandes dos Santos

doi:10.1111/jebm.12426

Back

The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID-19: An analysis of PROSPERO records

Journal article

Peer reviewed

The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID-19: An analysis of PROSPERO records

Lara Dotto, Mateus de Azevedo Kinalski, Pablo Soares Machado, Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre and Mateus Bertolini Fernandes dos Santos

Journal of evidence-based medicine, Vol.14(1), pp.56-64

02/2021

DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12426

PMCID: PMC8013525

PMID: 33595200

Files and links (1)

url

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/8013525View

Open Access

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the characteristics of different designs of systematic reviews (SRs) registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) about COVID-19. MethodsThe search was performed in the PROSPERO database using the strategy proposed by the database and considered only human studies. The last date of the search was April 27, 2020. Full text of all records was accessed, and data were extracted by a single researcher, which was further double-checked by another researcher. A descriptive analysis was performed considering record characteristics using tables. ResultsWe included 564 records from which the vast majority were registered as SRs (n = 513, 91%). In general, we found poor reporting and missing or confusing information, since 84% of the records (n = 474) did not report the full search that would be adopted, 16% (n = 90) did not report clearly the databases that would be used, and 49.1% (n = 277) did not report the number of primary outcomes. The main focus of most of the records involved clinical, epidemiological, complication, and laboratory characteristics (n = 173, 30.7%) or the treatment of COVID-19 (n = 138, 24.5%). ConclusionA large number of SRs about COVID-19 have been conducted, and many of the assessed records were poorly reported and would be difficult to replicate. Besides, collected data points to an epidemic of redundant reviews on COVID-19.

General & Internal Medicine

Life Sciences & Biomedicine

Medicine, General & Internal

Science & Technology

Details

Title: Subtitle: The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID-19: An analysis of PROSPERO records
Creators: Lara Dotto - Atitus Educação
Mateus de Azevedo Kinalski - Fed Univ Pelotas UFPEL, Grad Program Dent, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Pablo Soares Machado - Fed Univ Santa Maria UFSM, Post Grad Program Oral Sci, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira - Fed Univ Santa Maria UFSM, Post Grad Program Oral Sci, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
Rafael Sarkis-Onofre - Atitus Educação
Mateus Bertolini Fernandes dos Santos - Fed Univ Pelotas UFPEL, Grad Program Dent, Pelotas, RS, Brazil
Resource Type: Journal article
Publication Details: Journal of evidence-based medicine, Vol.14(1), pp.56-64
DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12426
PMID: 33595200
PMCID: PMC8013525
NLM abbreviation: J Evid Based Med
ISSN: 1756-5383
eISSN: 1756-5391
Publisher: Wiley
Number of pages: 9
Grant note: Meridional Foundation (Passo Fundo-Brazil) 001 / Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brasil (CAPES); Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
Language: English
Date published: 02/2021
Academic Unit: Prosthodontics
Record Identifier: 9984945918902771

Metrics

3 Record Views