Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews on COVID‐19: A comparative study of previous coronavirus outbreaks

Abstract

Background Several systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted on COVID‐19 outbreak, which together with the SRs on previous coronavirus outbreaks, form important sources of evidence for clinical decision and policy making. Here, we investigated the methodological quality of SRs on COVID‐19, SARS, and MERS. Methods Online searches were performed to obtain SRs on COVID‐19, SARS, and MERS. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR‐2 tool. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data. Results In total, of 49 SRs that were finally included in our study, 17, 16, and 16 SRs were specifically on COVID‐19, MERS, and SARS, respectively. The growth rate of SRs on COVID‐19 was the highest (4.54/month) presently. Of the included SRs, 6, 12, and 31 SRs were of moderate, low, and critically low quality, respectively. SRs on SARS showed the optimum quality among the SRs on the three diseases. Subgroup analyses showed that the SR topic (P<0.001), involvement of a methodologist (P<0.001), and funding support (P=0.046) were significantly associated with the methodological quality of the SR. According to the adherence scores, adherence to AMSTAR‐2 items sequentially decreased in SRs on SARS, MERS, and COVID‐19. Conclusions The methodological quality of most SRs on coronavirus outbreaks is unsatisfactory, and those on COVID‐19 have higher risks of poor quality, despite the rapid actions taken to conduct SRs. The quality of SRs should be improved in the future. Readers must exercise caution in accepting and using the results of these SRs.