Pussegoda Kusala, Israr Izza, Baumeister Austyn, Corrin Tricia, Sterian Melanie, Qamar Mavra, Samra Anmol, Waddell Lisa
Public Health Risk Sciences Division, National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada Guelph Ontario Canada.
Department of Population Medicine University of Guelph Guelph Ontario Canada.
Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. 2024 Nov 15;2(11):e70005. doi: 10.1002/cesm.70005. eCollection 2024 Nov.
Evidence syntheses were rapidly produced during the 2022 mpox outbreak despite a lack of studies. The aim of this methodological study was to assess the quality and utility of the evidence syntheses produced during the first 6 months of the outbreak compared to those published before it.
Human mpox evidence syntheses available before December 31, 2022 were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, EuropePMC, SSRN, and arXiv. Study characteristics, utility, methodological, and reporting quality (AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA) were contrasted between syntheses produced before the 2022 outbreak (historical) and during the first 6 months (new). Results were synthesized narratively.
Twenty-six evidence syntheses were included; two historical systematic reviews (SRs) and 24 new SRs, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, and mislabelled syntheses. Median time from search to publication/preprint post date was 68 and 6 weeks for historical and new syntheses, respectively. Among the new syntheses, 8% (2/24) did not include evidence from the 2022 outbreak, 33% (8/24) included only new evidence and 58% (14/24) included both new and historical evidence. Only 29% of new syntheses contrasted findings between new and historical evidence. Methodological quality was critically low for 100% of historical syntheses and 92% of new syntheses and the remainder (8%) were low. Reporting quality was poor with a median of 10.5 (range 10-11) and 11.5 (range 4-21) of 27 items reported sufficiently by historical and new syntheses, respectively.
Evidence syntheses take time to produce and during an emergent outbreak they are often outdated at the time of publication and suffer from poor adherence to methodological and reporting guidelines. Overlapping content and few new studies resulted in minimal added value to the mpox literature. Strategies to reduce duplication and mechanisms to produce and disseminate continuously updated living evidence syntheses need to be explored to support decision-makers responding to an emergency.
尽管研究数量不足,但在2022年猴痘疫情期间仍迅速完成了证据综合分析。本方法学研究的目的是评估疫情爆发前6个月期间所产生的证据综合分析的质量和实用性,并与疫情爆发前发表的证据综合分析进行比较。
从PubMed、Scopus、EuropePMC、SSRN和arXiv检索2022年12月31日前可用的人类猴痘证据综合分析。对2022年疫情爆发前(历史)和前6个月(新)所产生的综合分析的研究特征、实用性、方法学和报告质量(AMSTAR-2和PRISMA)进行对比。结果采用叙述性方式进行综合。
共纳入26项证据综合分析;两项历史系统评价(SRs)和24项新的SRs、快速评价、范围综述以及标注错误的综合分析。历史和新综合分析从检索到发表/预印本发布日期的中位时间分别为68周和6周。在新的综合分析中,8%(2/24)未纳入2&2年疫情爆发的证据,33%(8/24)仅纳入新证据,58%(14/24)同时纳入新证据和历史证据。只有29%的新综合分析对比了新证据和历史证据的结果。100%的历史综合分析和92%的新综合分析的方法学质量极低,其余(8%)为低质量。报告质量较差,历史和新综合分析分别充分报告的27项条目中位数为10.5(范围10-11)和11.5(范围4-21)。
证据综合分析的产生需要时间,在突发疫情期间,它们往往在发表时就已过时,且对方法学和报告指南的遵循情况较差。内容重叠且新研究较少,导致对猴痘文献的附加值极小。需要探索减少重复的策略以及产生和传播持续更新的动态证据综合分析的机制,以支持决策者应对紧急情况。