COVID-19-related medical research: a meta-research and critical appraisal
Marc Raynaud,Huanxi Zhang,Kevin Louis,Valentin Goutaudier,Jiali Wang,Quentin Dubourg,Yongcheng Wei,Zeynep Demir,Charlotte Debiais,Olivier Aubert,Yassine Bouatou,Carmen Lefaucheur,Patricia Jabre,Longshan Liu,Changxi Wang,Xavier Jouven,Peter Reese,Jean-Philippe Empana,Alexandre Loupy
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01190-w
2021-01-04
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Abstract:Abstract Background Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak, a large number of COVID-19-related papers have been published. However, concerns about the risk of expedited science have been raised. We aimed at reviewing and categorizing COVID-19-related medical research and to critically appraise peer-reviewed original articles. Methods The data sources were Pubmed, Cochrane COVID-19 register study, arXiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv, from 01/11/2019 to 01/05/2020. Peer-reviewed and preprints publications related to COVID-19 were included, written in English or Chinese. No limitations were placed on study design. Reviewers screened and categorized studies according to i) publication type, ii) country of publication, and iii ) topics covered. Original articles were critically appraised using validated quality assessment tools. Results Among the 11,452 publications identified, 10,516 met the inclusion criteria, among which 7468 (71.0%) were peer-reviewed articles. Among these, 4190 publications (56.1%) did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces). Overall, the most represented topics were infectious disease ( n = 2326, 22.1%), epidemiology ( n = 1802, 17.1%), and global health ( n = 1602, 15.2%). The top five publishing countries were China (25.8%), United States (22.3%), United Kingdom (8.8%), Italy (8.1%) and India (3.4%). The dynamic of publication showed that the exponential growth of COVID-19 peer-reviewed articles was mainly driven by publications without original data (mean 261.5 articles ± 51.1 per week) as compared with original articles (mean of 69.3 ± 22.3 articles per week). Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. A total of 576 original articles (80.8%) showed intermediate to high risk of bias. Last, except for simulation studies that mainly used large-scale open data, the median number of patients enrolled was of 102 (IQR = 37–337). Conclusions Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of research is composed by publications without original data. Peer-reviewed original articles with data showed a high risk of bias and included a limited number of patients. Together, these findings underscore the urgent need to strike a balance between the velocity and quality of research, and to cautiously consider medical information and clinical applicability in a pressing, pandemic context. Systematic review registration https://osf.io/5zjyx/
health care sciences & services