Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency

McDonald, Steve; Turner, Simon; Page, Matthew J.; Turner, Tari

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.02.006

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 70 publications

(90 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the relatively quick turnaround in conduct and subsequent publication of COVID-19 SRs, the question of the utility of these reviews remains, especially for reviews assessing the effects of potential treatments for COVID-19 [17]. The popularity of preprints [18,19] and the proliferation of living reviews [20] have been notable features of the pandemic, and are an attempt to speed up the transfer of information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are COVID-19 systematic reviews up to date and can we tell? A cross-sectional study

McDonald

Turner

Nguyen

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCOVID-19 led to a rapid acceleration in the number of systematic reviews. Readers need to know how up to date evidence is when selecting reviews to inform decisions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate how easily the currency of COVID-19 systematic reviews published early in the pandemic could be determined and how up to date these reviews were at the time of publication.MethodsWe searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses relevant to COVID-19 added to PubMed in July 2020 and January 2021, including any that were first published as preprints. We extracted data on the date of search, number of included studies, and date first published online. For the search date, we noted the format of the date and where in the review this was reported. A sample of non-COVID-19 systematic reviews from November 2020 served as a comparator.ResultsWe identified 246 systematic reviews on COVID-19. In the abstract of these reviews, around half (48%) reported the complete search date (day/month/year) and 43% failed to report any date. In the full text, the complete date and no date were reported in 82% and 6% of reviews, respectively. The median time from last search to publication online was 91 days (IQR 63–130). Time from search to publication was similar for the subset of 15 rapid or living reviews (92 days) but shorter for the 29 reviews published as preprints (37 days). The median number of studies or publications included per review was 23 (IQR 12–40). In the sample of 290 non-COVID SRs, around a quarter (27%) reported the complete search date and a third (34%) did not include any date in the abstract. The median time from search to publication online was 253 days (IQR 153–381) and each review included a median of 12 studies (IQR 8–21).ConclusionsDespite the context of the pandemic and the need to easily ascertain the currency of systematic reviews, reporting of the search date information for COVID-19 reviews was suboptimal. Reviews were conducted and published more quickly than non-COVID reviews but potentially at the expense of adequate reporting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are COVID-19 systematic reviews up to date and can we tell? A cross-sectional study

McDonald

Turner

Nguyen

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unless readers have confidence that an LSR is up to date and can readily see (and make judgements about) what evidence has not yet been included, the effort invested by author teams may be wasted and does little to avoid the duplication of reviews that has been a feature of the pandemic. 22 The example of remdesivir illustrates how susceptible LSRs are to losing relevance if this issue is not addressed-when results of the influential WHO Solidarity trial were posted as a preprint in mid-October 2020, it took 2-5 months for LSRs to be updated. 11 12 23 Alongside the growing numbers of LSRs, the pandemic has also seen the prominence of living guidelines, living updates and online living evidence systems, such as the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce (covid19evidence.net.au), PAHO's Ongoing Living Update of Potential COVID-19 Therapeutics Options (iris.paho.org/handle/10665.2/52719), COVID-19 LNMA (www.covid19lnma.com) and the COVID-NMA repository (covid-nma.com).…”

Section: Research Methods and Reportingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews

Metzendorf

Weibel

Reis

et al. 2022

BMJ EBM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are an increasingly common approach to keeping reviews up to date, in which new relevant studies are incorporated as they become available, so as to inform healthcare policy and practice in a timely manner. While journal publishers have been exploring the publication of LSRs using different updating and publishing approaches, readers cannot currently assess if the evidence underpinning a published LSR is up to date, as neither the search details, the selection process, nor the list of identified studies is made available between the publication of updates. We describe a new method to transparently report the living evidence surveillance process that occurs between published LSR versions. We use the example of the living Cochrane Review on nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir (Paxlovid) for preventing and treating COVID-19 to illustrate how this can work in practice. We created a publicly accessible spreadsheet on the Open Science Framework platform, linking to the living Cochrane Review, that details the search and study selection process, enabling readers to track the progress of eligible ongoing or completed studies. Further automation of the evidence surveillance process should be explored.

show abstract

“…Living reviews are particularly important in situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where the research evolves rapidly and published standard systematic reviews may become out of date quickly. 12 Responses to our survey provided more insight into the reasons for duplication. Notably, users indicated that they did not identify any similar records when they searched PROSPERO prior to registration, despite our own simple repetition of their searches identifying similar reviews.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extent and nature of duplication in PROSPERO using COVID-19-related registrations: a retrospective investigation and survey

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesDuring COVID-19, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) experienced a surge in registrations for COVID-19-related systematic reviews, and duplication of research questions became apparent. Duplication can waste funding, time and research effort and make policy making more difficult.This project explored the extent of and reasons for duplication of COVID-19-related systematic review registrations in PROSPERO during the pandemic.DesignRetrospective analysis of COVID-19-related registrations in PROSPERO, and a qualitative survey.SettingPROSPERO was searched for registrations related to four COVID-19 research areas: epidemiology, rehabilitation, transmission and treatments.MethodsRecords identified were compared using Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS) elements of PROSPERO registration forms. Registrations with similar or identical PICOS were evaluated further as ‘duplicates’.Authors of ‘duplicate’ registrations were invited to complete a survey asking whether they searched PROSPERO prior to registration, identified similar reviews and, if so, why they continued with their review.Results1054 COVID-19 reviews were registered between March 2020 and January 2021, of which 138 were submitted when at least one similar protocol was already registered in PROSPERO. Duplication was greatest in reviews of COVID-19 treatments; for example, there were 14 similar reviews evaluating the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine.From 138 authors invited to take part in the survey, we received 41 responses. Most respondents said that they identified similar reviews when they searched PROSPERO prior to registration. Main reasons given for ‘duplication’ were differences in PICOS or planned analyses (n=13), poor quality of previous registrations (n=2) and the need to update evidence (n=3).ConclusionsThis research highlights that registration of similar and duplicate systematic reviews related to COVID-19 in PROSPERO occurred frequently. Awareness of research waste is required, and initial checking for similar reviews should be embedded within good review practice.

show abstract

Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency

Cited by 16 publications

References 70 publications

Are COVID-19 systematic reviews up to date and can we tell? A cross-sectional study

Are COVID-19 systematic reviews up to date and can we tell? A cross-sectional study

Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews

Extent and nature of duplication in PROSPERO using COVID-19-related registrations: a retrospective investigation and survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About