Potential limitations in systematic review studies assessing the effect of the main intervention for treatment/therapy of COVID-19 patients: An overview

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough 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.MethodsPubMed, 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.ResultsForty-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.ConclusionVarious 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.

The application for innovative methods and materials for greater sustainability in residential buildings in the UK: “a bibliometric review”

“…Typically, the two most common types of reviews carried out in academic research are systematic and bibliometric, both of which have advantages and disadvantages [18]. Systematic reviews allow for a deep analysis of research identifying what is already known but importantly, identifying potential gaps in research which can allow researchers to then explore those areas further [19]. When conducting the initial search of data, however, if too many search results are yielded, this can often make the systematic review method more difficult from a time perspective and, as such, a bibliometric analysis may offer a better alternative [18].…”

Magnetic stimulation in the treatment of female urgency urinary incontinence: a systematic review

“…Nevertheless, based on the literature, we followed several methods to assess the quality of our systematic literature review and the studies included; that is, we used some common methods: in addition to the PRISMA checklist, the methodological quality of the reviews included was assessed using the AMSTAR2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) quality assessment tool, which showed moderate quality of the studies included. Moreover, we used NHLBI Study Quality Assessment Tools in order to assess the quality of the studies included [15][16][17]. This SR was registered in PROSPERO (no.…”

Vitamin D and Periodontal Health: A Systematic Review

“…We have selected RCTs for this systematic review. The systematic review has its inherent trouble, such as hazards of bias, such as selection bias, insufficient blinding, abrasion bias, and selective outcome reportage; a discrepancy that comprises clinical or statistical heterogeneousness; and inaccuracy that can lead to Type I and Type II errors [ 151 ].…”