Following the science? Comparison of methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 and other research from the first wave of the pandemic

BMC Medicine

Kerry Dwan¹  Nicola Cooper²  Suzanne C. Freeman²  Clareece R. Nevill²  Dikshyanta Rana³  Yiqiao Xin³  Ryan Field³  Claudia Geue³  Ping-Hsuan Hsieh⁴  Jennifer K. Burton⁵  Martin Taylor Rowan⁵  Alex Sutton⁵  Terence J. Quinn⁶  Ben Carter⁷  Kris McGill⁸ 

[1] Cochrane Methods Support Unit, Cochrane, UK, Oxford, UK;Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK;Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK;Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK;Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defence Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan;Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK;Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, New Lister Building Campus, Alexandra Parade, G31 2ER, Glasgow, UK;Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience Kings College London, London, UK;NMAHP Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK;

关键词: Clinical trials;    COVID-19;    Methodology;    Observational research;    Publishing;    Reporting;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12916-021-01920-x

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundFollowing the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time.MethodsWe reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported.ResultsFrom 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid.ConclusionsAcross various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted.

【 授权许可】

CC BY