Liu Xuerong, Li Wei, Zhang Qianyu, Lei Jingyu, Han Xiaodi, Wang Yaozhi, Shen Chang, Zhan Yu, Li Yanyan, Shi Liping, Ren Jidong, Zhang Jingxuan, Zhang Xiaolin, Wu Yan, Liao Haiping, Xia Lei, Luan Jia, Li Yue, Cummins Tatum Madeleine, Feng Zhengzhi, Huang Chunji, Chen Zhiyi
Experimental Research Center of Medical and Psychological Science, School of Psychology, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing 400038, China.
Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality, Ministry of Education, Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China.
PNAS Nexus. 2025 Jul 29;4(8):pgaf238. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf238. eCollection 2025 Aug.
The fast-tracked publication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related meta-analytic evidence has undeniably facilitated rapid public health policymaking; however, concerns are mounting that this publication policy may compromise research quality and scientific integrity. To investigate this, we conducted a meta-research study systematically evaluating risk of bias (ROB), transparency, and reproducibility in pandemic-era meta-analyses synthesizing COVID-19-derived mental health problem epidemics. From 98 identified studies-including data from 18.6 million individuals across 94 countries-we observed significant ROBs in publication, with one new meta-analysis published approximately every 5 days at peak output. Despite apparent sample diversity, nearly half of participants were from China, and only 8.9% originated from less economically developed countries. Of these meta-analyses, a substantial proportion (70.6%) showed discrepancies between Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-guided reporting and actual research conducts, while 57.1% exhibited high methodological ROBs due to insufficient data sources and lack of sensitivity analysis. Alarmingly, none achieved full computational reproducibility, and fewer than one-fifth were fully replicable. Furthermore, neither publication in high-impact journals, citation performance, nor fast-track publication mode correlated with lower ROBs that we identified above. To address these limitations, we re-estimated global COVID-19-derived mental health epidemics using their individual participant data after minimizing identified ROBs. Our recalibrated meta-analytic findings provide more reliable benchmarks for understanding the pandemic's mental health impact. This study demonstrated that rigorous methodology and scientific integrity must remain central priorities-even under urgent, crisis-driven conditions-establishing a foundation for transparent, reproducible, and unbiased global mental health surveillance during public health emergencies.
2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)相关的荟萃分析证据的快速发表无疑促进了公共卫生政策的快速制定;然而,越来越多的人担心,这一发表政策可能会损害研究质量和科学诚信。为了对此进行调查,我们开展了一项元研究,系统评估了在大流行时期综合COVID-19导致的心理健康问题流行情况的荟萃分析中的偏倚风险(ROB)、透明度和可重复性。从98项已识别的研究中——包括来自94个国家的1860万人的数据——我们观察到发表过程中存在显著的ROB,在产出高峰期大约每5天就有一项新的荟萃分析发表。尽管样本看似具有多样性,但近一半的参与者来自中国,只有8.9%来自经济欠发达国家。在这些荟萃分析中,很大一部分(70.6%)显示,系统评价与荟萃分析优先报告条目(PRISMA)指南指导的报告与实际研究行为之间存在差异,而57.1%由于数据来源不足和缺乏敏感性分析而表现出较高的方法学ROB。令人担忧的是,没有一项实现完全的计算可重复性,不到五分之一的研究能够完全被复制。此外,在高影响力期刊上发表、被引表现以及快速发表模式均与我们上述识别出的较低ROB无关。为了解决这些局限性,我们在将识别出的ROB降至最低后,使用个体参与者数据重新估计了全球COVID-19导致的心理健康流行情况。我们重新校准的荟萃分析结果为理解大流行对心理健康的影响提供了更可靠的基准。这项研究表明,即使在紧急的、危机驱动的情况下,严谨的方法和科学诚信也必须始终是首要任务,这为公共卫生紧急事件期间透明、可重复和无偏倚的全球心理健康监测奠定了基础。