Mohseni Mahsa, Ameri Hosein, Arab-Zozani Morteza
Knowledge Utilization Research Centre, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Health Policy and Management Research Center, Department of Health Management and Economics, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Sep 15;9:966632. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.966632. eCollection 2022.
Although several studies have assessed the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of interventions in treating the COVID-19, many of them have limitations that can have an immense impact on their results. This study aims to assess the potential limitations in systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluate the effect of interventions on the treatment of the COVID-19.
PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Sciences (WOS) databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2022. All systematic reviews investigated the effectiveness, efficacy, safety, and outcome of the main intervention (Favipiravir, Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, or Tocilizumab) for the treatment of COVID-19 patients and reported the potential limitations of the included studies. We assessed the quality of the included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool (QAT) for review articles. We conducted a content analysis and prepared a narrative summary of the limitations.
Forty-six studies were included in this review. Ninety one percent of the included studies scored as strong quality and the remaining (9%) as moderate quality. Only 29.7% of the included systematic reviews have a registered protocol. 26% of the included studies mentioned a funding statement. The main limitations of the included studies were categorized in 10 domains: sample size, heterogeneity, follow-up, treatment, including studies, design, definitions, synthesis, quality, and search.
Various limitations have been reported in all the included studies. Indeed, the existence of limitations in studies can affect their results, therefore, identifying these limitations can help researchers design better studies. As a result, stronger studies with more reliable results will be reported and disseminated. Further research on COVID-19 SRs is essential to improve research quality and also, efficiency among scientists across the world.
尽管多项研究评估了治疗新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)干预措施的安全性、有效性和效能,但其中许多研究存在局限性,可能对其结果产生巨大影响。本研究旨在评估系统评价(SRs)中评估干预措施对COVID-19治疗效果时存在的潜在局限性。
检索PubMed、Scopus和科学网(WOS)数据库自建库至2022年1月1日的数据。所有系统评价均调查了主要干预措施(法匹拉韦、瑞德西韦、羟氯喹、伊维菌素、洛匹那韦/利托那韦或托珠单抗)治疗COVID-19患者的有效性、效能、安全性和结局,并报告了纳入研究的潜在局限性。我们使用综述文章质量评估工具(QAT)评估纳入研究的质量。我们进行了内容分析,并编写了局限性的叙述性总结。
本综述纳入了46项研究。91%的纳入研究质量评分为高,其余(9%)为中等质量。仅29.7%的纳入系统评价有注册方案。26%的纳入研究提到了资金声明。纳入研究的主要局限性分为10个领域:样本量、异质性、随访、治疗、纳入研究、设计、定义、综合、质量和检索。
所有纳入研究均报告了各种局限性。事实上,研究中存在的局限性会影响其结果,因此,识别这些局限性有助于研究人员设计更好的研究。结果,将报告并传播更有力、结果更可靠的研究。对COVID-19系统评价进行进一步研究对于提高研究质量以及全球科学家之间的效率至关重要。