gms | German Medical Science

23. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

01. - 03.09.2022, Lübeck

Treatment of COVID-19, meta-research study II: characteristics of systematic reviews, registered in PROSPERO or published in the L·OVE database

Meeting Abstract

  • Julia Nothacker - Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland
  • Waldemar Siemens - Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland; Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Deutschland
  • Julia Stadelmaier - Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland
  • Jörg J. Meerpohl - Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland; Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Deutschland
  • Christine Schmucker - Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center – University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Deutschland

Evidenzbasierte Medizin für eine bedarfsgerechte Gesundheitsversorgung. 23. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin. Lübeck, 01.-03.09.2022. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2022. Doc22ebmVS-01

doi: 10.3205/22ebm001, urn:nbn:de:0183-22ebm0019

Published: August 30, 2022

© 2022 Nothacker et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Outline

Text

Background/research question: A large number of systematic reviews (SRs) were initiated as part of the first wave of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19).

The aim of this study was to describe the COVID-19 SRs registered in PROSPERO and in the L·OVE database, to analyze the proportion of publications of the PROSPERO-sample and the proportion of registered SRs of the L·OVE-sample.

Methods: This meta-research study (CRD42021240423) is part of the CEOsys project: COVID-19 Evidenz Ökosystem, www.covid-evidenz.de. Two reviewers systematically identified COVID-19 SRs in PROSPERO (period 2020/01/01 and 2020/08/31) and in the L·OVE database (last search: 2021/05/05).

SRs with and without meta-analysis, network meta-analyses, and living SRs that were available in PROSPERO as a protocol or in the L·OVE database as a preprint or journal article were included. SRs had to examine treatment measures of COVID-19 and had at least one health-related outcome.

Results: Our searches identified 612 records in PROSPERO and 2,180 records in the L·OVE database. Finally, we included 239 SR protocols (PROSPERO) and 346 published SRs (L·OVE) on which we derived the following preliminary results.

PROSPERO-sample (N=239): The majority of SR protocols were from Asia (147; 60.3%), of which 102 were from China, followed by Latin America (36, 15.1%), Europe (28; 11.7%), Africa (18, 7.5%), and USA (6; 2.5%) (others: 9; 3.8%). The most common review types registered were SRs with (175; 73.2%) and without meta-analysis (31; 13.0%), Living SRs (23; 9.6%), and Rapid Reviews (7; 2.9%) (others: 8; 3.3%). The proportion of publications was 20.1% (n=48) identified up to 2021/05/05.

L·OVE-sample (N=346): The majority of published SRs were from Asia (163; 47.1%), of which 62 were from China, followed by Europe (57; 16.5%), USA (51, 14.7%), Latin America (37, 11.0%), and Africa (22, 6.4%) (others: 16; 4.6%). The most common review types published on the L·OVE platform were SRs with (201; 58.1%) and without meta-analysis (92; 26.6%), Living SRs (16; 4.6%), and Rapid Reviews (32; 9.3%) (others: 5; 1.5%). The proportion of registered SRs was 24.6% (n=85).

Conclusion: In times of resource scarcity during the pandemic, registration and timely publication of results become all the more important. This contrasts with the low proportions for registration and publication of the identified SRs and should sensitize review authors for SR conduct practices as well as readers for the interpretation of SRs from the first COVID-19 wave.