The quality of systematic reviews and other synthesis in the time of COVID-19

Thumbnail image

Download files

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268821001758

Language of the publication
English
Date
2021-08-03
Type
Article
Author(s)
  • Baumeister, A.
  • Abid, H.
  • Young, K. M.
  • Ayache, D.
  • Waddell, L.
  • Corrin, T.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press

Abstract

COVID-19 research has been produced at an unprecedented rate and managing what is currently known is in part being accomplished through synthesis research. Here we evaluated how the need to rapidly produce syntheses has impacted the quality of the synthesis research. Thus, we sought to identify, evaluate and map the synthesis research on COVID-19 published up to 10 July 2020. A COVID-19 literature database was created using pre-specified COVID-19 search algorithms carried out in eight databases. We identified 863 citations considered to be synthesis research for evaluation in this project. Four-hundred and thirty-nine reviews were fully assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and rated as very low-quality (n = 145), low-quality (n = 80), medium-quality (n = 208) and high-quality (n = 151). The quality of these reviews fell short of what is expected for synthesis research with key domains being left out of the typical methodology. The increase in risk of bias due to non-adherence to systematic review methodology is unknown and prevents the reader from assessing the validity of the review. The responsibility to assure the quality is held by both producers and publishers of synthesis research and our findings indicate there is a need to equip readers with the expertise to evaluate the review conduct before using it for decision-making purposes.

Plain language summary

Here we evaluated how the need to rapidly produce syntheses has impacted the quality of the synthesis research. Thus, we sought to identify, evaluate and map the synthesis research on COVID-19 published up to 10 July 2020. A COVID-19 literature database was created using pre-specified COVID-19 search algorithms carried out in eight databases. We identified 863 citations considered to be synthesis research for evaluation in this project. Four-hundred and thirty-nine reviews were fully assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and rated as very low-quality (n = 145), low-quality (n = 80), medium-quality (n = 208) and high-quality (n = 151). The quality of these reviews fell short of what is expected for synthesis research with key domains being left out of the typical methodology. The increase in risk of bias due to non-adherence to systematic review methodology is unknown and prevents the reader from assessing the validity of the review. The responsibility to assure the quality is held by both producers and publishers of synthesis research and our findings indicate there is a need to equip readers with the expertise to evaluate the review conduct before using it for decision-making purposes.

Subject

  • Health

Keywords

  • COVID-19*,
  • Humans,
  • Meta-Analysis as Topic,
  • Research / standards,
  • Research / trends*,
  • Systematic Reviews as Topic / standards*

Rights

Pagination

1-8

Peer review

Yes

Open access level

Gold

Identifiers

PubMed ID
34340726
ISSN
1469-4409

Article

Journal title
Epidemiology & Infection
Journal volume
149
Journal issue
e182

Download(s)

URI

Collection(s)

Communicable diseases

Full item page

Full item page

Page details

Date modified: