Assessment of COVID-19-related meta-analysis reporting quality

Abstract

Background: Meta-analysis of high-quality primary articles represents the top-quality evidence in medical literature. In this project, our aim was to assess the number and quality of COVID-related meta-analysis published since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The search included the period from January 1, 2020, when the beginning of primary articles on COVID-19, till October 31, 2020. We screened a total of 793 studies. We excluded non-meta-analytic non-COVID-19-related studies. We obtained different characteristics, and we determined the quality of reporting using the AMSTAR tool, an 11-items tool that assesses the content validity and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Results: A total of 538 studies were included in our assessment. The first meta-analysis included was published in March, while the last one was on the 31st of October. Upon comparing the mean AMSTAR score for meta-analysis published during each month, we found a significant difference (p < 0.001, F = 4.139), where the mean score almost steadily increased since March. Conclusion: The urge to publish during the COVID-19 period or any other surge in publishing should not be at the expense of quality.