gms | German Medical Science

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

Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

01. - 03.09.2022, Lübeck

Prevention of COVID-19, meta-research study I: 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
  • Julia Stadelmaier - 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
  • 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. Doc22ebmPS-03

doi: 10.3205/22ebm010, urn:nbn:de:0183-22ebm0107

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: In the COVID-19 pandemic (and beyond), systematic reviews (SR) are essential to guide evidence-based decision-making. We investigated characteristics of SR targeting COVID-19 prevention measures during the first phase of the pandemic by (i) identifying PROSPERO registrations, (ii) identifying published SR and (iii) estimating the proportion of publications of the PROSPERO sample. This meta-research study (CRD42021240423) is part of the German CEOsys project, www.covid-evidenz.de.

Methods: We searched PROSPERO for protocols registered between 01/01/2020 and 31/08/2020 and we searched the COVID-19 L·OVE database for published SR (search date: 05/05/2021) focusing on any preventive measure in any population confronted with COVID-19. Key characteristics of both samples were extracted and summarised.

Results: PRSOSPERO sample: Of the 612 protocols identified in our searches in PROSPERO, 47 were included. The main investigators were located in Asia (13), South America (13), Europe (10) and others (11). Most entries focused on general or high-risk populations. School populations were considered in 2 entries. The considered interventions included public health interventions (PHI) (20), vaccinations (9), personal protective equipment (PPE) (9), and others (9). The PROSPERO entries were labelled as meta-analyses (MA) (23), SR (10), rapid SR (10) or living SR (4). By May 2021, 35 (74%) of the protocols had passed their anticipated completion date, and 13 (37%) of this subsample of protocols were published. Median time between registration and publication was 5 months for peer reviewed SR and 2 months for preprints.

L·OVE sample: Of the 2,185 entries identified in our searches in the COVID-19 L·OVE database, 51 were included. The main investigators were located in Europe (19), Asia (15), North America (9), and others (8). The interventions of interest were PHI (21), vaccination (8), pharmaceutical interventions (9), PPE (8) and others (5). The 51 published articles were labelled as MA (13), SR (18), rapid SR (17) or living SR (3). The number of included studies in the published SR ranged between 0 (9) and 64 (1) with a median of 7 studies.

Conclusion: At the beginning of the pandemic, most SR were initiated either in Asia or in Europe and focused on PHI in the general or high-risk population. Almost 20% of the SR published in May 2021 did not include any primary studies revealing the overall lack of primary research addressing preventive measures in a pandemic phase.