Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
In later 2019, a pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged in Wuhan, China, and rapidly spread to 23 countries around the world. A large number of case series studies using computer tomography (CT) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were published. However, the reporting quality of those studies is unknow.
Objectives:
To evaluate the reporting quality of case series studies reporting widely used CT for COVID-19 patients.
Methods:
MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Wangfang Data, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), and CBM (Sinomed) were searched between 1 January 2020 and 1 March 2020. Case series studies focused on chest CT imaging for patients with COVID-19 were included. We used the revised Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guideline to assess the reporting quality of case series studies on COVID-19.
Results:
We included thirty-three case series studies. Only 21.2% (7/33) the studies used the term "case series" in the title, no article used the "case series" as a keyword, and only one literature in the research method mentioned the type of study as a case series. 60.6% (20/33) of the included studies were not comprehensively described the methods in the abstract, such as describe when was it done and by whom. No studies reported the trial registration. 48.5%(16/33)included studies didn’t perform ethical approval. Only 27.3% (9/33) studies reported the prospective or retrospective in design, the single or multi-center, and consecutive or non-consecutive, however most of studies did not report whether the cases are consecutive or non-consecutive. There were 30.3% (10/33) studies did not report where the study was conducted, and the remaining only mentioned the name or geographical location of the hospital, but not the nature of the institution; 75.8% (25/33) did not report the exclusion criteria for participants or the epidemiological history/severity of the disease and other comorbid conditions; 57.6% (19/33) of image examination methods and parameters/contents and methods of image evaluation were not reported or incomplete; 21.2% (7/33) did not report the experience of image evaluators, and 42.4% (14/33) did not have quality control and consistency checks. Most of the literature (32/33) in the discussion section summarized the key results and 81.8% (27/33) of the articles compared with previous studies, but only 54.5% (18/33) articles discussed the advantages and limitations of research. 81.8% (27/33) studies did not declare conflicts of interest or funding sources.
Conclusions:
The reporting quality of the case series studies in the field of CT diagnosis of COVID-19 is poor. Future studies should follow the reporting guideline of case series. In addition, the PROCESS guidelines are not applicable to the imaging field. A case series reporting guideline for imaging will be developed later.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: None.
In later 2019, a pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged in Wuhan, China, and rapidly spread to 23 countries around the world. A large number of case series studies using computer tomography (CT) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were published. However, the reporting quality of those studies is unknow.
Objectives:
To evaluate the reporting quality of case series studies reporting widely used CT for COVID-19 patients.
Methods:
MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Wangfang Data, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), and CBM (Sinomed) were searched between 1 January 2020 and 1 March 2020. Case series studies focused on chest CT imaging for patients with COVID-19 were included. We used the revised Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guideline to assess the reporting quality of case series studies on COVID-19.
Results:
We included thirty-three case series studies. Only 21.2% (7/33) the studies used the term "case series" in the title, no article used the "case series" as a keyword, and only one literature in the research method mentioned the type of study as a case series. 60.6% (20/33) of the included studies were not comprehensively described the methods in the abstract, such as describe when was it done and by whom. No studies reported the trial registration. 48.5%(16/33)included studies didn’t perform ethical approval. Only 27.3% (9/33) studies reported the prospective or retrospective in design, the single or multi-center, and consecutive or non-consecutive, however most of studies did not report whether the cases are consecutive or non-consecutive. There were 30.3% (10/33) studies did not report where the study was conducted, and the remaining only mentioned the name or geographical location of the hospital, but not the nature of the institution; 75.8% (25/33) did not report the exclusion criteria for participants or the epidemiological history/severity of the disease and other comorbid conditions; 57.6% (19/33) of image examination methods and parameters/contents and methods of image evaluation were not reported or incomplete; 21.2% (7/33) did not report the experience of image evaluators, and 42.4% (14/33) did not have quality control and consistency checks. Most of the literature (32/33) in the discussion section summarized the key results and 81.8% (27/33) of the articles compared with previous studies, but only 54.5% (18/33) articles discussed the advantages and limitations of research. 81.8% (27/33) studies did not declare conflicts of interest or funding sources.
Conclusions:
The reporting quality of the case series studies in the field of CT diagnosis of COVID-19 is poor. Future studies should follow the reporting guideline of case series. In addition, the PROCESS guidelines are not applicable to the imaging field. A case series reporting guideline for imaging will be developed later.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: None.