The mass production of systematic reviews about COVID‐19: An analysis of PROSPERO records

Dotto, Lara; Kinalski, Mateus de Azevedo; Machado, Pablo Soares; Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha; Sarkis‐Onofre, Rafael; dos Santos, Mateus Bertolini Fernandes

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the characteristics of different designs of systematic reviews (SRs) registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) about COVID‐19. METHODS: The search was performed in the PROSPERO database using the strategy proposed by the database and considered only human studies. The last date of the search was April 27, 2020. Full text of all records was accessed, and data were extracted by a single researcher, which was further double‐checked by another researcher. A descriptive analysis was performed considering record characteristics using tables. RESULTS: We included 564 records from which the vast majority were registered as SRs (n = 513, 91%). In general, we found poor reporting and missing or confusing information, since 84% of the records (n = 474) did not report the full search that would be adopted, 16% (n = 90) did not report clearly the databases that would be used, and 49.1% (n = 277) did not report the number of primary outcomes. The main focus of most of the records involved clinical, epidemiological, complication, and laboratory characteristics (n = 173, 30.7%) or the treatment of COVID‐19 (n = 138, 24.5%). CONCLUSION: A large number of SRs about COVID‐19 have been conducted, and many of the assessed records were poorly reported and would be difficult to replicate. Besides, collected data points to an epidemic of redundant reviews on COVID‐19.