Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency

Kusala Pussegoda, Izza Israr, Austyn Baumeister, Tricia Corrin, Melanie Sterian, Mavra Qamar, Anmol Samra, Lisa Waddell
{"title":"Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency","authors":"Kusala Pussegoda,&nbsp;Izza Israr,&nbsp;Austyn Baumeister,&nbsp;Tricia Corrin,&nbsp;Melanie Sterian,&nbsp;Mavra Qamar,&nbsp;Anmol Samra,&nbsp;Lisa Waddell","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Evidence syntheses were rapidly produced during the 2022 mpox outbreak despite a lack of studies. The aim of this methodological study was to assess the quality and utility of the evidence syntheses produced during the first 6 months of the outbreak compared to those published before it.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Human mpox evidence syntheses available before December 31, 2022 were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, EuropePMC, SSRN, and arXiv. Study characteristics, utility, methodological, and reporting quality (AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA) were contrasted between syntheses produced before the 2022 outbreak (historical) and during the first 6 months (new). Results were synthesized narratively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-six evidence syntheses were included; two historical systematic reviews (SRs) and 24 new SRs, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, and mislabelled syntheses. Median time from search to publication/preprint post date was 68 and 6 weeks for historical and new syntheses, respectively. Among the new syntheses, 8% (2/24) did not include evidence from the 2022 outbreak, 33% (8/24) included only new evidence and 58% (14/24) included both new and historical evidence. Only 29% of new syntheses contrasted findings between new and historical evidence. Methodological quality was critically low for 100% of historical syntheses and 92% of new syntheses and the remainder (8%) were low. Reporting quality was poor with a median of 10.5 (range 10–11) and 11.5 (range 4–21) of 27 items reported sufficiently by historical and new syntheses, respectively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Evidence syntheses take time to produce and during an emergent outbreak they are often outdated at the time of publication and suffer from poor adherence to methodological and reporting guidelines. Overlapping content and few new studies resulted in minimal added value to the mpox literature. Strategies to reduce duplication and mechanisms to produce and disseminate continuously updated living evidence syntheses need to be explored to support decision-makers responding to an emergency.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70005","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.70005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Evidence syntheses were rapidly produced during the 2022 mpox outbreak despite a lack of studies. The aim of this methodological study was to assess the quality and utility of the evidence syntheses produced during the first 6 months of the outbreak compared to those published before it.

Methods

Human mpox evidence syntheses available before December 31, 2022 were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, EuropePMC, SSRN, and arXiv. Study characteristics, utility, methodological, and reporting quality (AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA) were contrasted between syntheses produced before the 2022 outbreak (historical) and during the first 6 months (new). Results were synthesized narratively.

Results

Twenty-six evidence syntheses were included; two historical systematic reviews (SRs) and 24 new SRs, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, and mislabelled syntheses. Median time from search to publication/preprint post date was 68 and 6 weeks for historical and new syntheses, respectively. Among the new syntheses, 8% (2/24) did not include evidence from the 2022 outbreak, 33% (8/24) included only new evidence and 58% (14/24) included both new and historical evidence. Only 29% of new syntheses contrasted findings between new and historical evidence. Methodological quality was critically low for 100% of historical syntheses and 92% of new syntheses and the remainder (8%) were low. Reporting quality was poor with a median of 10.5 (range 10–11) and 11.5 (range 4–21) of 27 items reported sufficiently by historical and new syntheses, respectively.

Conclusions

Evidence syntheses take time to produce and during an emergent outbreak they are often outdated at the time of publication and suffer from poor adherence to methodological and reporting guidelines. Overlapping content and few new studies resulted in minimal added value to the mpox literature. Strategies to reduce duplication and mechanisms to produce and disseminate continuously updated living evidence syntheses need to be explored to support decision-makers responding to an emergency.

Abstract Image

人类麻痘系统性审查和快速审查的方法和报告质量及其在公共卫生突发事件中的作用
引言 在 2022 年麻风腮疫情爆发期间,尽管缺乏研究,但证据综述却迅速产生。本方法学研究旨在评估疫情爆发前 6 个月内产生的证据综述与疫情爆发前发表的证据综述相比的质量和实用性。 方法 从 PubMed、Scopus、EuropePMC、SSRN 和 arXiv 中检索 2022 年 12 月 31 日之前发表的人类麻疹证据综述。对比了 2022 年疫情爆发前(历史)和前 6 个月(新)的综述的研究特点、实用性、方法和报告质量(AMSTAR-2 和 PRISMA)。对结果进行了叙述性综合。 结果 纳入了 26 篇证据综述;其中包括 2 篇历史性系统综述 (SR) 和 24 篇新的 SR、快速综述、范围界定综述和误标综述。历史综述和新综述从搜索到出版/预印本发布日期的中位时间分别为 68 周和 6 周。在新综述中,8%(2/24)不包括2022年爆发的证据,33%(8/24)只包括新证据,58%(14/24)同时包括新证据和历史证据。只有 29% 的新综述对新证据和历史证据的研究结果进行了对比。100%的历史综述和92%的新综述的方法学质量极低,其余(8%)的方法学质量较低。报告质量较差,历史综述和新综述充分报告的 27 个项目中,中位数分别为 10.5(范围 10-11)和 11.5(范围 4-21)。 结论 证据综述的制作需要时间,在紧急疫情爆发期间,这些综述在发表时往往已经过时,而且对方法和报告指南的遵守情况较差。重叠的内容和极少的新研究使得 mpox 文献的附加值微乎其微。需要探索减少重复的策略,以及制作和传播持续更新的活体证据综述的机制,以支持决策者应对紧急情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信