Review of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses on COVID-19

  1. Nasrien E. Ibrahim
  2. Ezzeldin M. Ibrahim

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Purpose

The rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted researchers from all over the world to share their experience. The results were numerous reports with variable quality. The latter has provided an impetus to examine all published meta-analyses and systematic reviews on COVID-19 to date to examine available evidence. Methods: Using predefined selection criteria, a literature search identified 43 eligible meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews. Results: Most (N=17) studies addressed clinical manifestations and associated comorbidity, 6 studies addressed clinical manifestations in pregnant women and younger individuals, 8 studies addressed diagnostic data, 9 studies addressed various interventions, and 9 studies addressed prevention and control. The number of studies included in the various systemic reviews and meta-analyses ranged from 2 to 89. While there were some similarities and consistency for some findings, e.g. the relation between comorbidities and disease severity, we also noted occasionally conflicting data. Conclusion: As more data are collected from patients infected with COVID-19 all over the world, more studies will undoubtedly be published and attention to scientific accuracy in the performance of trials must be exercised to inform clinical decision-making and treatment guidelines.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.03.20121137: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Search strategy: Between January 1st, 2020 and April 30th, 2019, we identified eligible studies using electronic literature search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library.
    MEDLINE
    suggested: (MEDLINE, RRID:SCR_002185)
    EMBASE
    suggested: (EMBASE, RRID:SCR_001650)
    Cochrane Library
    suggested: (Cochrane Library, RRID:SCR_013000)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    As more patients became ill with COVID-19, as hospitals became overwhelmed with sick patients with various ranges of disease severity and ran out of beds and ventilators, as personal protective equipment was challenging to secure in some countries, as various medications were attempted for prophylactic use and treatment, as financial institutions suffered major loses, as weaknesses in healthcare systems were exposed, and most important, as millions of lives were lost, the internet served as an integral space to share both accurate and inaccurate information; including published and retracted studies. There were common clinical manifestations and comorbidities in the systematic reviews/meta-analyses we included. Notably, patients were predominantly middle-aged men and comorbidities such a diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and smoking were prevalent and associated with more severe disease. The most common clinical manifestations were fever, cough, and dyspnea. Rates of ARDS and mortality varied between studies. In pregnant women with COVID-19 infection, the caesarean section rate was >80% and children with COVID-19 presented with mild to moderate symptoms and no deaths were reported in children aged 0 to 9 years (Table 2). The most frequent chest CT findings were GGO and bilateral infiltrates. With regards to medication interventions, no benefit for using antiviral drugs was found, no benefit or harm with use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was found, and...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a protocol registration statement.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.03.20121137v1 on medRxiv