| Literature DB >> 33574258 |
Richard G Jung1,2,3, Pietro Di Santo1,2,4,5, Cole Clifford6, Graeme Prosperi-Porta7, Stephanie Skanes6, Annie Hung8, Simon Parlow4, Sarah Visintini9, F Daniel Ramirez1,4,10,11, Trevor Simard1,2,3,4,12, Benjamin Hibbert13,14,15.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0-25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0-156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.Entities:
Mesh：
Year: 2021 PMID： 33574258 DOI： 10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN： 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919