Contents
You đang tìm kiếm từ khóa Scoping review and meta-analysis được Update vào lúc : 2022-12-16 15:06:16 . Với phương châm chia sẻ Kinh Nghiệm về trong nội dung bài viết một cách Chi Tiết Mới Nhất. Nếu sau khi Read nội dung bài viết vẫn ko hiểu thì hoàn toàn có thể lại Comment ở cuối bài để Ad lý giải và hướng dẫn lại nha.
://orcid.org/0000-0002-8957-884XRachel Wurth1,Michelle Hajdenberg2,Francisco J Barrera3,4,5,Skand Shekhar1,6,Caroline E Copacino7,Pablo J Moreno-Peña5,Omar A.M. Gharib1,Forbes Porter1,Swapnil Hiremath8,Janet E Hall6,Ernesto L Schiffrin9,Graeme Eisenhofer10,Stefan R Bornstein11,Juan P. Brito4,José Gerardo González-González3,5,Constantine A Stratakis1,René Rodríguez-Gutiérrez3,4,5,Fady Hannah-Shmouni11NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA2College of Arts and Sciences, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA3Endocrinology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital “Dr. Jose E. González”, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico4Knowledge and Evaluation Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA5Plataforma INVEST-KER Unit Mayo Clinic (KER Unit Mexico), School of Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico6Clinical Research Branch, NIEHS, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA7Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA8University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada9McGill University Faculty of Medicine, Montreal, Québec, Canada10Institute of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany11Department of Medicine III, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, GermanyCorrespondence to Dr Fady Hannah-Shmouni, NICHD, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA; fady.hannah-shmouninih.gov
Aim The aim of this study was to systematically appraise the quality of a sample of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) and discuss internal validity threats affecting the COVID-19 body toàn thân of evidence.
Nội dung chính
Design We conducted a scoping review of the literature. SRs with or without meta-analysis (MA) that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19 were included.
Main outcome measures We extracted quality characteristics guided by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 to calculate a qualitative score. Complementary evaluation of the most prominent published limitations affecting the COVID-19 body toàn thân of evidence was performed.
Results A total of 63 SRs were included. The majority were judged as a critically low methodological quality. Most of the studies were not guided by a pre-established protocol (39, 62%). More than half (39, 62%) failed to address risk of bias when interpreting their results. A comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most SRs (54, 86%). Appropriate use of statistical methods was evident in nearly all SRs with MAs (39, 95%). Only 16 (33%) studies recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study, and 15 (24%) recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation.
Conclusion The methodological and reporting quality of current COVID-19 SR is far from optimal. In addition, most of the current SRs fail to address relevant threats to their internal validity, including repeated patients and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Adherence to proper study design and peer-review practices must remain to mitigate current limitations.
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJs website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, tải về and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
://bmj/coronavirus/usage
Since the first report of SARS-CoV-2 in December 2022, the betacoronavirus responsible for COVID-19, there has been an exponential increase in the published literature on the topic; more than 2400 articles on COVID-19 were published in a single day alone, 5 June 2022,1 2 and since December, 56 534 full-text articles related to COVID-19 have been documented on the WHO Global literature on coronavirus disease database.3
The deluge of manuscripts represents the largest explosion of scientific evidence in history, and there has been increasing concern that high publication volumes, including expedited peer-review processes and increased use of preprint servers, may be compromising the scientific quality of current research.4 5 Concerns are not limited to quality; duplicate and incomplete reporting of patient data has been recognised as a significant threat to the accuracy of subsequent prevalence and effect estimates.69 In addition, inconsistent clinical definitions, particularly for classifying severe COVID-19, make the synthesis of information a problematic task.7 9 10
The large volume and variable quality of published work on COVID-19 highlight an overwhelming need to organise and summarise findings so that the most current and accurate information can be easily accessed.11 Several groups, including our own, have conducted systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses (MAs) to address this need.7 Using our experience and a scoping review of the literature, we will discuss the limitations of the current COVID-19-related SRs and provide suggestions for improving future research.
A search strategy was executed in MEDLINE via PubMed from 1 December 2022 until 17 May 2022. The search strategy was limited to peer-reviewed SRs with or without MAs published in English that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19. The search terms for PubMed were coronavirus disease 2022, COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2. This scoping review was not registered with PROSPERO.
A title-and-abstract and a full-text screening phase was performed by experienced reviewers in an independent and duplicated manner. Each phase was prepiloted to ensure basic understanding of the selection criteria. Substantial agreement had to be achieved to perform each phase (kappa >0.70).
For each eligible study, two reviewers independently extracted the primary outcome, country(s) of the primary studies, journal, associated impact factor for 2022 (per Journal Citation Reports, ://jcr.clarivate/) and methodological quality indicators.
Methodological appraisal using AMSTAR-2
The included studies methodological quality was appraised independently and in duplicate by experienced reviewers using the critical domains of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2).12 A qualitative score of critically low, low, moderate or high quality was assigned to directly reflect the number of critical flaws present across each of the domains. A quantitative score was calculated by giving 1 point for yes and 0.5 points for partial yes and 0 points for no for a total of 7 points for SRs with MAs and 5 points for SRs without MAs.12 13
Supplementary methodological appraisal
Complementary evaluation of internal validity threats to the COVID-19 body toàn thân of evidence was performed based on several concerns with current COVID-19 reports. This evaluation aimed to ascertain the prevalence of SRs which included primary studies that repeated patient populations, provided clinical definitions for comorbidities (eg, hypertension was defined using specific blood pressure values) and were preprint. In addition, the articles were assessed for the presence of methods to manage the absence of a universal definition for severe COVID-19.68 10 Discrepancies between reviewers in the screening and data extraction phases were resolved by consensus. If consensus could not be reached, a third senior investigator was consulted (FHS, RRG or JPB).
Categorical data are summarised in frequencies and percentages, and numerical data in means and SD. Students t-test and Pearsons χ2 test were performed to seek an association between the methodological quality as a quantitative or qualitative score, respectively, and the inclusion of preprint primary studies, or single/multinational primary studies, or a clearly defined primary outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS V.25.0 for Mac (IBM).
Our search strategy yielded a total of 105 studies, of which 63 met the inclusion criteria (figure 1, trực tuyến supplemental appendix 1). The majority of the SRs included primary studies from more than one country (34, 56%) and 23 (37%) included data from a single country, China. The mean±SD for impact factor was 4.36±3.37 (range, 1.4217.37; table 1) for SRs with MAs and 4.30±3.19 (range, 0.8613.95; table 1) for SRs without MAs.
[postgradmedj-2020-139392supp001.pdf]
Figure 1
Flow chart of the selection process.
View this table:
Table 1
Quantitative AMSTAR-2 score for systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses was not influenced by primary study characteristics or journal impact factor
The methodological quality was qualitatively judged as critically low in 27 (66%) and 16 (73%) of the included studies for SRs with MAs and SRs without MAs, respectively; only 6 (15%) and 2 (9%) were judged as high quality (table 2). The mean±SD AMSTAR-2 score for SRs with MAs was 4.49±1.47 (range, 17) and for SRs without MAs was 1.98±1.52 (range, 05) (table 1). For both SRs with and without MAs, the inclusion of multinational primary studies, preprint primary studies or a clearly defined primary outcome did not appear to influence the qualitative score (table 1).
View this table:
Table 2
Characteristics of included systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses
The complete performance of the SRs with and without MAs for the critical domains of AMSTAR-2 can be found in table 3. Across both groups of included studies (SRs with MAs and SRs without MAs), the most critical methodological flaws were lack of or inadequate pre-established study protocol (39, 62%) and discussion of risk of bias when interpreting the results (39, 62%), respectively. In addition, the majority of SRs without MAs suffered from deficient techniques for assessing the risk of bias for the included studies (15, 68%; table 3). The most prominent strength of SRs with MAs was the use of appropriate statistical methods to synthesise results (39, 95%). In addition, the use of a comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most of the included studies (54, 86%).
View this table:
Table 3
Performance of systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses for the critical domains of AMSTAR-2
Of the 49 SRs that evaluated comorbidities, only 15 (30%) provided a clinical definition of included comorbidities. Severe COVID-19 was evaluated as an outcome in 48 SRs, although only 16 (33%) recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study. Of these 16 studies, 4 stated that only one definition of severe COVID-19 was used.1417 Almost all (15, 94%) included an MA; however, the vast majority (11, 73%) did not perform a sensitivity analysis for each definition of severe COVID-19 used in the primary studies.14 15 1828 Only 15 (24%) of the included SRs recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation of their study, and the majority (11, 73%) of these SRs implemented a method to mitigate the risk of including repeated patients in their analysis. Finally, 15 (24%) SRs included preprint primary studies.
In this scoping review, we aimed to appraise the methodological quality of COVID-19 SRs with and without MAs using a validated SR appraisal tool, AMSTAR-2, and complementary criteria evaluating limitations pertinent to the current pandemic literature. Overall, the quality of included SRs was judged as critically low. A small number of studies recognised limitations affecting COVID-19-related primary literature, namely, the inclusion of primary studies that repeat patient populations and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Ultimately, the SRs evaluated in this study suffered from several major limitations and the reported effect estimates, and conclusions should be interpreted cautiously.
The majority of COVID-19-related SRs evaluated in this study suffered from significant limitations, with two-thirds of the included SRs with MAs and 7 of 10 SRs without MAs judged as a critically low methodological quality. The average quantitative score was 4.49 of 7 and 1.98 of 5 for SRs with and without MAs, respectively. Although AMSTAR-2 does not recommend the use of a quantitative score to evaluate SRs, previous studies have used both qualitative and quantitative scores.13 29 30 We did not find any correlation between qualitative score and the inclusion of multinational primary studies, preprint primary studies or a clearly defined primary outcome.
One of the most prominent flaws of both SRs with and without MAs was lack of or inadequate pre-established study protocol. Interestingly, previous studies evaluating the methodological quality of SRs across various disciplines also reported insufficient pre-established study protocols as a predominant limitation.2931 Therefore, this limitation appears to impact SRs holistically. Brito et al reported that SRs including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) received a higher AMSTAR score. Inclusion of RCT primary studies was extremely limited in our body toàn thân of evidence, likely due to the recent emergence of COVID-19. Future appraisals of the methodological quality of COVID-19-related SRs should explore associations between primary study design type and AMSTAR score. Ultimately, unambiguous eligibility criteria for included primary studies and a structure for quantitative and qualitative synthesis are critical components to an SR.32 SRs conducted without a prespecified protocol may be subject to selection bias.33
We also found that the majority of SRs with and without MAs failed to adequately discuss risk of bias when interpreting the results of the study. In the SR/MA recently published by the authors, the primary studies were of critical risk of bias, and therefore it is imperative to recognise this limitation to prevent any conclusions from being overstated.7 While retrospective studies are an initial source of information the onset of the pandemic, failure to consider potential biases affecting retrospective studies, including, but not limited to, confounding, and collider bias creates methodological flaws.3437 Strengths of the included studies were use of appropriate statistical methods for combining results, such as justifying the use of a random-effects or fixed-effects model and providing pre-established methods to investigate heterogeneity, as well as the use of a comprehensive literature search. Adherence to both these practices will minimise bias and help achieve more representative and reliable effect estimates.33
Of the 63 SRs evaluated in our study, less than one-quarter either identified repeat patient populations as a limitation of their study or considered repeat patient populations to be a factor when selecting studies for MA. To avoid examination of repeat populations, some MAs excluded studies that appeared to have overlap.20 3841 In some cases, authors of the primary publications may have been contacted to explain the overlaps. In one study,40 the authors assessed information from the facilities to which patients were admitted, as well as the epidemiological week to avoid any overlap. However, the vast majority of publications examined did not recognise repeat patient populations as a limitation in performing an MA, whereas others recognised duplicate patient populations as a limitation of the study but did not specify if or how those repeat patient populations were addressed.
In our experience, to prevent analysis of repeated patient populations, we evaluated all included studies for overlap in both hospital and time frame of enrolment, selecting the study with the largest sample size when overlap was suspected.7 We encourage authors to implement similar methods to prevent the introduction of bias and inflation of results. In the case of interventional studies, reporting populations more than once increases the chance that the CI around the pooled effect size will be lower, altering interpretations of significance values.42
One of the larger concerns in performing SRs of COVID-19 is the lack of a universal definition of severe COVID-19.9 Of the 63 SRs examined, 48 evaluated severe COVID-19 as an outcome. However, half of the SRs that recognised heterogeneity in these definitions did not address the issue in their analysis. Of the SRs that addressed heterogeneity, many outlined severe disease according to specific organisations (such as the Chinese National Health Committee, WHO guidelines, American Thoracic Society Guidelines), whereas others constructed their own definition of severe COVID-19.20 These self-constructed definitions included presentation of acute respiratory distress syndrome, use of ventilation or life tư vấn, or admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Inconsistencies in the definition of severe COVID-19 used by primary studies creates a source of bias known as information bias, where exposure and/or outcome are incorrectly determined.43 Future SRs should be cognisant of this type of bias and consider establishing selection criteria for primary studies and conducting sensitivity analyses to determine whether effect estimates vary.44 Ultimately, until a universal definition of severe COVID-19 is established, the clinical significance of severe COVID-19 as an outcome will remain unclear.
SRs related to COVID-19 suffer from significant limitations as reflected by the poor methodological quality of the majority of SRs included in our study. In table 4, we provide a brief overview of additional, highly contested limitations affecting the COVID-19 body toàn thân of evidence and possible solutions to mitigate their deleterious consequences. Future such analyses should establish methods to eliminate duplicate patient populations, including evaluation of overlapping hospitals and study duration, to prevent artificial inflation of outcomes.45 In addition, heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 prevents establishing reliable associations between risk factors and this outcome. Authors should consider using surrogate quantifiable definitions of severity, such as ICU admission, to mitigate this concern.46 Ultimately, addressing these limitations will help reduce bias and establish a more accurate estimation of risks associated with COVID-19 outcomes of interest.
View this table:
Table 4
Additional limitations affecting the COVID-19 body toàn thân of evidence and suggestions to mitigate their deleterious consequences
As new studies continue to be published, a living SR model (LSR) may serve as a valuable mechanism for representing the dynamic COVID-19 literature. LSRs are continuously updated, with new searches conducted pre-established time frames to synthesise the most up-to-date information. LSRs are justified for research questions deemed important to clinical decision-making and in the setting of rapidly evolving or emerging health issues or disease.47 Therefore, authors should consider implementing this model to establish the most current risks and clinical guidance.
Ultimately, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in rapid collaborations between academia, government and industry, in some cases a multinational level, to produce an astronomical amount of data on virtually every aspect of SARS-CoV-2. Although rapid dissemination of findings essential to human health is invaluable, long-standing practices of proper study design and peer review cannot be compromised if we are to establish optimal public health policies.
Limitations of our study include only searching in MEDLINE. It is likely that additional SRs that met our inclusion criteria were missed, and therefore our conclusions may not be generalisable to COVID-19-related SRs. However, the main intention of this scoping review was to obtain a representative sample of the total SRs available in the literature and not to provide a comprehensive overview and appraisal of the totality. Second, our appraisal was limited to the critical domains of AMSTAR-2, and the additional methodological qualities assessed through the non-critical domains of AMSTAR-2 were not evaluated in this study. Our study is strengthened by inclusion of a secondary evaluation of limitations pertinent to the COVID-19 body toàn thân of evidence, inclusion of repeated patient populations and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 and by a systematic approach to the screening and data extraction of the studies included.
Current SRs suffer from important methodological limitations according to our systematic evaluation using the AMSTAR-2 critical domains and additional concerns pertinent to the COVID-19 current literature. The methodological flaws place these articles high risk of bias that, if existent, could influence their results and lead to misleading conclusions. Therefore, the findings of the majority of the studies should be interpreted with caution. We encourage future SRs to take into consideration these particularities in the COVID-19 literature to obtain more reliable results and lead to a better understanding of the current pandemic.
The quality of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) included in our study was judged as critically low, and only a small number of studies recognised limitations affecting COVID-19 related primary literature.
The most prominent methodological flaws of the included SRs were lack of or inadequate pre-established study protocol and discussion of risk of bias.
The majority of included SRs used a comprehensive literature search strategy and appropriate statistical methods to synthesise results (when a meta-analysis was performed).
What limitations are affecting COVID-19-related systematic reviews?
Are COVID-19-related SRs accounting for current limitations affecting the COVID-19 literature?
The exponential increase in COVID-19-related literature has raised concerns about the quality of current research.
High publication demand has overwhelmed publishers, leading to increased use of preprint servers and in some cases expedited peer-review processes.
Limitations pertinent to the COVID-19 body toàn thân of evidence, including a lack of a universal definition for severe COVID-19, may introduce biases that are not currently accounted for.
Naudé W. Artificial intelligence vs COVID-19: limitations, constraints and pitfalls. AI Soc 2022:7615.doi:10.1007/s00146-020-00978-0pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32346223OpenUrlPubMedWHO Director-Generals opening remarks the truyền thông briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March 2022 [press release] 2022.WHO. COVID-19 global literature on coronavirus disease, 2022.Bauchner H,Fontanarosa PB,Golub RM. Editorial evaluation and peer review during a pandemic: how journals maintain standards. JAMA 2022;324:453-454.doi:10.1001/jama.2022.11764pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32589195OpenUrlPubMedThe Lancet global H. publishing in the time of COVID-19. Lancet Glob Health 2022;8:e860.Bauchner H,Golub RM,Zylke J. Editorial Concern-Possible reporting of the same patients with COVID-19 in different reports. JAMA 2022;323:1256.doi:10.1001/jama.2022.3980pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32176775OpenUrlPubMedBarrera FJ,Shekhar S,Wurth R, et al. Prevalence of diabetes and hypertension and their associated risks for poor outcomes in Covid-19 patients. J Endocr Soc 2022;4:bvaa102. doi:10.1210/jendso/bvaa102pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32885126OpenUrlPubMedvon Elm E,Poglia G,Walder B, et al. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA 2004;291:97480.doi:10.1001/jama.291.8.974pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14982913OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceBarrera FJ,González-González JG,Rodríguez-Gutiérrez R. Gastrointestinal and liver involvement in patients with COVID-19. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;5:799.doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30209-0pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32818458OpenUrlPubMedLipsitch M,Donnelly CA,Fraser C, et al. Potential biases in estimating absolute and relative case-fatality risks during outbreaks. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2015;9:e0003846. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003846pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26181387OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedBrainard J. Scientists are drowning in COVID-19 papers. can new tools keep them afloat? 2022.Shea BJ,Reeves BC,Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2022;358:j4008.doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28935701OpenUrlFREE Full TextChuruangsuk C,Kherouf M,Combet E, et al. Low-carbohydrate diets for overweight and obesity: a systematic review of the systematic reviews. Obes Rev 2022;19:170018.doi:10.1111/obr.12744pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30194696OpenUrlPubMedHuang I,Lim MA,Pranata R. Diabetes mellitus is associated with increased mortality and severity of disease in COVID-19 pneumonia – A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2022;14:395403.doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2022.04.018pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32334395OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedChang T-H,Wu J-L,Chang L-Y. Clinical characteristics and diagnostic challenges of pediatric COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Formos Med Assoc 2022;119:9829.doi:10.1016/j.jfma.2022.04.007pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32307322OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedPranata R,Huang I,Lim MA, et al. Impact of Cerebrovascular and Cardiovascular Diseases on Mortality and Severity of COVID-19 – Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2022;104949.Zhang JJY,Lee KS,Ang LW, et al. Risk factors for severe disease and efficacy of treatment in patients infected with COVID-19: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2022;71:2199-2206.doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa576pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32407459OpenUrlPubMedKumar A,Arora A,Sharma P, et al. Is diabetes mellitus associated with mortality and severity of COVID-19? A meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2022;14:53545.doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2022.04.044pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32408118OpenUrlPubMedHu Y,Sun J,Dai Z, et al. Prevalence and severity of corona virus disease 2022 (COVID-19): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Virol 2022;127:104371.doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2022.104371pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32315817OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedHenry BM,de Oliveira MHS,Benoit S, et al. Hematologic, biochemical and immune biomarker abnormalities associated with severe illness and mortality in coronavirus disease 2022 (COVID-19): a meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;58:10218.doi:10.1515/cclm-2022-0369pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32286245OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedFu L,Wang B,Yuan T, et al. Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2022 (COVID-19) in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect 2022;80:65665.doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2022.03.041pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32283155OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedCheung KS,Hung IFN,Chan PPY, et al. Gastrointestinal manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 infection and virus load in fecal samples from a Hong Kong cohort: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2022;159:8195.doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2022.03.065pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32251668OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedLippi G,Wong J,Henry BM. Hypertension in patients with coronavirus disease 2022 (COVID-19): a pooled analysis. Pol Arch Intern Med 2022;130:3049.doi:10.20452/pamw.15272pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32231171OpenUrlPubMedZhao Q.,Meng M,Kumar R, et al. Lymphopenia is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2022 (COVID-19) infections: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis 2022;96:1315.doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2022.04.086pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32376308OpenUrlPubMedJW L,Han TW,Woodward M. The impact of 2022 novel coronavirus on heart injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2022.Zhao Q.,Meng M,Kumar R, et al. The impact of COPD and smoking history on the severity of COVID-19: a systemic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol 2022;92:191521.doi:10.1002/jmv.25889pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32293753OpenUrlPubMedPranata R,Lim MA,Huang I, et al. Hypertension is associated with increased mortality and severity of disease in COVID-19 pneumonia: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst 2022;21:147032032092689.doi:10.1177/1470320320926899pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32408793OpenUrlPubMedMao R,Qiu Y,He J-S, et al. Manifestations and prognosis of gastrointestinal and liver involvement in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;5:66778.doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30126-6pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32405603OpenUrlPubMedBrito JP,Tsapas A,Griebeler ML, et al. Systematic reviews supporting practice guideline recommendations lack protection against bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:6338.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.008pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23510557OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedSanabria A,Kowalski LP,Nixon I, et al. Methodological quality of systematic reviews of intraoperative neuromonitoring in thyroidectomy: a systematic review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022;145:56373.doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2022.0092pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30973598OpenUrlPubMedPenedones A,Batel Marques F. Methodologic assessment of the systematic reviews of ophthalmic adverse drug reactions published in ophthalmology journals: a systematic review. Ophthalmic Res 2022;60:5568.doi:10.1159/000489932pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29975961OpenUrlPubMedKoffel JB,Rethlefsen ML. Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: a cross-sectional study. PLoS One 2022;11:e0163309. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163309pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27669416OpenUrlPubMedIn: Higgins JPT TJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2022). Cochrane, 2022. .training.cochrane.org/handbookGriffith GJ,Morris TT,Tudball MJ, et al. Collider bias undermines our understanding of COVID-19 disease risk and severity. Nat Commun 2022;11:5749. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19478-2pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33184277OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedGreenland S,Morgenstern H. Confounding in health research. Annu Rev Public Health 2001;22:189212.doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.22.1.189pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11274518OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGreenland S. Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology 2003;14:3006.doi:10.1097/01.EDE.0000042804.12056.6Cpmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12859030OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceDekkers OM,Vandenbroucke JP,Cevallos M, et al. COSMOS-E: guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology. PLoS Med 2022;16:e1002742. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30789892OpenUrlPubMedDi Mascio D,Khalil A,Saccone G. Outcome of coronavirus spectrum infections (SARS, MERS, COVID 1 -19) during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2022;100107.Farsalinos K,Barbouni A,Niaura R. Systematic review of the prevalence of current smoking among hospitalized COVID-19 patients in China: could nicotine be a therapeutic option? Intern Emerg Med 2022:18.Zhu J,Ji P,Pang J, et al. Clinical characteristics of 3062 COVID-19 patients: a meta-analysis. J Med Virol 2022;92:190214.doi:10.1002/jmv.25884pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32293716OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedAggarwal G,Cheruiyot I,Aggarwal S, et al. Association of cardiovascular disease with coronavirus disease 2022 (COVID-19) severity: a meta-analysis. Curr Probl Cardiol 2022;45:100617. doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.100617pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32402515OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedDijkers M. Duplicate publications and systematic reviews: problems and proposals 2022;6:12.Grimes DA,Schulz KF. Bias and causal associations in observational research. Lancet 2002;359:24852.doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07451-2pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11812579OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceWolfe D,Yazdi F,Kanji S, et al. Incidence, causes, and consequences of preventable adverse drug reactions occurring in inpatients: a systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS One 2022;13:e0205426. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205426pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30308067OpenUrlPubMedHoy D,Brooks P,Woolf A, et al. Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:9349.doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22742910OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedMetlay JP,Waterer GW,Long AC, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. An official clinical practice guideline of the American thoracic Society and infectious diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2022;200:e4567.doi:10.1164/rccm.201908-1581STpmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31573350OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedJoanne Brooker AS,McDonald S,Elliott J. Guidance for the production and publication of Cochrane living systematic reviews: cochrane reviews in living mode, 2022.Sarma P,Kaur H,Kumar H, et al. Virological and clinical cure in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol 2022;92:77685.doi:10.1002/jmv.25898pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32297988OpenUrlPubMedYang Z,Liu J,Zhou Y, et al. The effect of corticosteroid treatment on patients with coronavirus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect 2022;81:e1320.doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2022.03.062pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32283144OpenUrlPubMedCao Y,Liu X,Xiong L, et al. Imaging and clinical features of patients with 2022 novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Virol 2022.Wang X,Fang X,Cai Z, et al. Comorbid chronic diseases and acute organ injuries are strongly correlated with disease severity and mortality among COVID-19 patients: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Research 2022;2022:117.doi:10.34133/2022/2402961pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32377638OpenUrlPubMedMantovani A,Beatrice G,Dalbeni A. Coronavirus disease 2022 and prevalence of chronic liver disease: a meta-analysis. Liver Int 2022;40:131620.doi:10.1111/liv.14465pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32329563OpenUrlPubMedParohan M,Yaghoubi S,Seraji A. Liver injury is associated with severe coronavirus disease 2022 (COVID-19) infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective studies. Hepatol Res 2022;50:924-935.doi:10.1111/hepr.13510pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32386449OpenUrlPubMedTong JY,Wong A,Zhu D, et al. The prevalence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunction in COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2022;163:311.doi:10.1177/0194599820926473pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32369429OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedZheng Z,Peng F,Xu B. Risk factors of critical & mortal COVID-19 cases: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Infect 2022.Wang B,Li R,Lu Z, et al. Does comorbidity increase the risk of patients with COVID-19: evidence from meta-analysis. Aging 2022;12:604957.doi:10.18632/aging.103000pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32267833OpenUrlPubMedEmami A,Javanmardi F,Pirbonyeh N, et al. Prevalence of underlying diseases in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Acad Emerg Med 2022;8:e35.pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32232218OpenUrlPubMedZhu J,Zhong Z,Ji P, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of 8697 patients with COVID-19 in China: a meta-analysis. Fam Med Com Health 2022;8:e000406.doi:10.1136/fmch-2022-000406OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full TextSantoso A,Pranata R,Wibowo A, et al. Cardiac injury is associated with mortality and critically ill pneumonia in COVID-19: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med 2022;33.doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2022.04.052Borges do Nascimento IJ,Cacic N,Abdulazeem HM, et al. Novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in humans: a scoping review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med 2022;9. doi:doi:10.3390/jcm9040941. [Epub ahead of print: 30 03 2020].pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32235486OpenUrlPubMedWang X,Wang S,Sun L, et al. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus in 2022 novel coronavirus: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2022;164:108200. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2022.108200pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32407746OpenUrlPubMedRodriguez-Morales AJ,Cardona-Ospina JA,Gutiérrez-Ocampo E, et al. Clinical, laboratory and imaging features of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med Infect Dis 2022;34:101623. doi:10.1016/j.tmaid.2022.101623pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32179124OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedYang J,Zheng Y,Gou X, et al. Prevalence of comorbidities and its effects in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis 2022;94:915.doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2022.03.017pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32173574OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedLi B,Yang J,Zhao F, et al. Prevalence and impact of cardiovascular metabolic diseases on COVID-19 in China. Clin Res Cardiol 2022;109:5318.doi:10.1007/s00392-020-01626-9pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32161990OpenUrlPubMedAlqahtani JS,Oyelade T,Aldhahir AM, et al. Prevalence, severity and mortality associated with COPD and smoking in patients with COVID-19: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2022;15:e0233147. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233147pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32392262OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedSingh AK,Singh A,Singh R, et al. ‘Hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis’.. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2022;14:58996.doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2022.05.017pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32417708OpenUrlPubMedZhang X,Yu J,Pan L-Y, et al. ACEI/ARB use and risk of infection or severity or mortality of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pharmacol Res 2022;158:104927.doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2022.104927pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32422341OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWang H,Qiu P,Liu J, et al. The liver injury and gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with coronavirus disease 19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2022.Gao Y,Chen Y,Liu M, et al. Impacts of immunosuppression and immunodeficiency on COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect 2022;81:e935.doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2022.05.017pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32417309OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedYang Z,Wang M,Zhu Z, et al. Coronavirus disease 2022 (COVID-19) and pregnancy: a systematic review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med;2022:14.Zaigham M,Andersson O. Maternal and perinatal outcomes with COVID-19: a systematic review of 108 pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2022;99:8239.doi:10.1111/aogs.13867pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32259279OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedYousefifard M,Zali A,Mohamed Ali K, et al. Antiviral therapy in management of COVID-19: a systematic review on current evidence. Arch Acad Emerg Med 2022;8:e45.pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32309809OpenUrlPubMedFord N,Vitoria M,Rangaraj A, et al. Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral drugs against SARS, MERS or COVID-19: initial assessment. J Int AIDS Soc 2022;23:e25489. doi:10.1002/jia2.25489pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32293807OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedLudvigsson JF. Systematic review of COVID-19 in children shows milder cases and a better prognosis than adults. Acta Paediatr 2022;109:108895.doi:10.1111/apa.15270pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32202343OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedBalla M,Merugu GP,Patel M, et al. COVID-19, modern pandemic: a systematic review from front-line health care providers’ perspective. J Clin Med Res 2022;12:21529.doi:10.14740/jocmr4142pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32362969OpenUrlPubMedMoujaess E,Kourie HR,Ghosn M. Cancer patients and research during COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review of current evidence. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2022;150:102972. doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.102972pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32344317OpenUrlPubMedAminJafari A,Ghasemi S. The possible of immunotherapy for COVID-19: a systematic review. Int Immunopharmacol 2022;83:106455. doi:10.1016/j.intimp.2022.106455pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32272396OpenUrlPubMedSingh AK,Singh A,Shaikh A, et al. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19 with or without diabetes: a systematic search and a narrative review with a special reference to India and other developing countries. Diabetes Metab Syndr 2022;14:2416.doi:10.1016/j.dsx.2022.03.011pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32247211OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedMinotti C,Tirelli F,Barbieri E, et al. How is immunosuppressive status affecting children and adults in SARS-CoV-2 infection? A systematic review. J Infect 2022;81:e616.doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2022.04.026pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32335173OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedCastagnoli R,Votto M,Licari A, et al. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in children and adolescents. JAMA Pediatr 2022;174:882. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.1467Lovato A,de Filippis C. Clinical presentation of COVID-19: a systematic review focusing on upper airway symptoms. Ear Nose Throat J 2022;99:569-576.doi:10.1177/0145561320920762pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32283980OpenUrlPubMedCortegiani A,Ingoglia G,Ippolito M, et al. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19. J Crit Care 2022;57:27983.doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2022.03.005pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32173110OpenUrlPubMedVardavas CI,Nikitara K. COVID-19 and smoking: a systematic review of the evidence. Tob Induc Dis 2022;18:20. doi:10.18332/tid/119324pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32206052OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedRajendran K,Krishnasamy N,Rangarajan J, et al. Convalescent plasma transfusion for the treatment of COVID-19: systematic review. J Med Virol 2022;92:147583.doi:10.1002/jmv.25961pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32356910OpenUrlPubMedDella Gatta AN,Rizzo R,Pilu G, et al. Coronavirus disease 2022 during pregnancy: a systematic review of reported cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022;223:3641.doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2022.04.013pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32311350OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedElshafeey F,Magdi R,Hindi N, et al. A systematic scoping review of COVID-19 during pregnancy and childbirth. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2022;150:4752.doi:10.1002/ijgo.13182pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32330287OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedMehta NS,Mytton OT,Mullins EWS. SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19): what do we know about children? A systematic review. Clin Infect Dis. 2022.Alzghari SK,Acuña VS. Supportive treatment with tocilizumab for COVID-19: a systematic review. J Clin Virol 2022;127:104380.doi:10.1016/j.jcv.2022.104380pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32353761OpenUrlPubMedVeronese N,Demurtas J,Yang L, et al. Use of corticosteroids in coronavirus disease 2022 pneumonia: a systematic review of the literature. Front Med 2022;7:170.doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.00170pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32391369OpenUrlPubMedAiello F,Gallo Afflitto G,Mancino R, et al. Coronavirus disease 2022 (SARS-CoV-2) and colonization of ocular tissues and secretions: a systematic review. Eye 2022;34:120611.doi:10.1038/s41433-020-0926-9pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32424327OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedValk SJ,Piechotta V,Chai KL, et al. Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune immunoglobulin for people with COVID-19: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022;5:CD013600. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013600pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32406927OpenUrlPubMedGroenwold RHH,Dekkers OM. Methodology for the ENDOCRINOLOGIST: basic aspects of confounding adjustment. Eur J Endocrinol 2022;182:E57.doi:10.1530/EJE-20-0075pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32069219OpenUrlPubMedShrier I,Platt RW. Reducing bias through directed acyclic graphs. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8:70. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-70pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18973665OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedSuttorp MM,Siegerink B,Jager KJ, et al. Graphical presentation of confounding in directed acyclic graphs. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015;30:141823.doi:10.1093/ndt/gfu325pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25324358OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedCole SR,Platt RW,Schisterman EF, et al. Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39:41720.doi:10.1093/ije/dyp334pmid:://.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19926667OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceThe retraction watch database.
Bạn vừa tìm hiểu thêm nội dung bài viết Với Một số hướng dẫn một cách rõ ràng hơn về Clip Scoping review and meta-analysis tiên tiến và phát triển nhất
Bạn đang tìm một số trong những Chia Sẻ Link Down Scoping review and meta-analysis Free.
Nếu sau khi đọc nội dung bài viết Scoping review and meta-analysis vẫn chưa hiểu thì hoàn toàn có thể lại Comment ở cuối bài để Ad lý giải và hướng dẫn lại nha
#Scoping #review #metaanalysis
Tra Cứu Mã Số Thuế MST KHƯƠNG VĂN THUẤN Của Ai, Công Ty Doanh Nghiệp…
Các bạn cho mình hỏi với tự nhiên trong ĐT mình gần đây có Sim…
Thủ Thuật về Nhận định về nét trẻ trung trong môi trường tự nhiên vạn…
Thủ Thuật về dooshku là gì - Nghĩa của từ dooshku -Thủ Thuật Mới 2022…
Kinh Nghiệm Hướng dẫn Tìm 4 số hạng liên tục của một cấp số cộng…
Mẹo Hướng dẫn Em hãy cho biết thêm thêm nếu đèn huỳnh quang không còn…