Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19
Zhe Chen,Jiefeng Luo,Siyu Li,Peipei Xu,Linan Zeng,Qin Yu,Lingli Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S367339
2022-08-05
Clinical Epidemiology
Abstract:Zhe Chen, 1– 5, &ast Jiefeng Luo, 1– 5, &ast Siyu Li, 1– 4, 6 Peipei Xu, 1– 4, 6 Linan Zeng, 1– 4 Qin Yu, 4, 7 Lingli Zhang 1– 4 1 Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China; 2 Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China; 3 NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research on Drug Products in Vitro and in Vivo Correlation, Chengdu, People's Republic of China; 4 Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Sichuan University, Ministry of Education, Chengdu, People's Republic of China; 5 West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China; 6 West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China; 7 National Drug Clinical Trial Institute, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People's Republic of China &astThese authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence: Lingli Zhang, Email Qin Yu, Email Purpose: The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed. Results: Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) > 5 and 17.2% with an IF > 15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on "living" process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode. Conclusion: Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the "living" process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19. Keywords: living systematic review, coronavirus disease 2019, systematic review, reporting quality The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in December 2019, has rapidly spread to 220 countries and regions, leading to the global pandemicity. 1 According to the latest data from World Health Organization (WHO), over 562 million people have been diagnosed and over six million people have died from COVID-19 up tol July 22, 2022. 2 To cope with the epidemic and severity of COVID-19, many countries accelerated research of diagnosis, vaccination and therapeutics, which cause a surge in the number of clinical studies on COVID-19 in a short time. 3,4 From January 1, 2020 to May 6, 2020, 1694 clinical trials related to COVID-19 were authorized and can be found in five international clinical trial registries. 5 However, a study from the British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggested that the large amount of studies on COVID-19 resulted in increased difficulty to respond quickly and effectively to devise an appropriate crisis response strategy to the novel coronavirus, which had also hugely impacted the mental health of health-care employees due to overload of work and exhaustion under the COVID-19 pandemic. 6 As high-level -Abstract Truncated-
public, environmental & occupational health