COVID-19-related medical research: a meta-research and critical appraisal

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/

Coronavirus (COVID-19): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Evaluate the Significance of Demographics and Comorbidities

“…Most of the systematic reviews focus and elaborate on a single subject area. There has been a large number of articles since the start of the pandemic; a total of 11,452 publications existed on Covid-19 from November 2019-May 2020, and it is required to identify and segregate the articles [4] for better interpretation, reproducible analysis, and understanding the bias in the research.…”

Convalescent Plasma for the Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis

“…Publication bias may be another potential limitation given that the majority of early clinical studies on COVID-19 lacked original data, and those that did were rushed and did not include the appropriate measures to reduce bias [316]. Among the 243 papers included in this review, 32.5% (n=79) were commentaries, 18.9% (n=46) were reviews, and 7.8% (n=19) were protocols that did not contain any new data.…”

Challenges and Lessons Learned From COVID-19 Trials: Should We Be Doing Clinical Trials Differently?

“…However, it is too early to assess the true impact of COVID-19 related retractions compared with other scientific research areas ( 68 ).Concerns have been raised regarding the quality of the publications being disseminated with the majority not presenting original data (i.e. expert opinion pieces) and when original data were presented over 80% showed intermediate to high risk of bias and included small number of patients ( 69 ). Many journals have experienced a massive increase in submissions putting heightened pressure upon editors and peer reviewers.…”