Article type
Abstract
Background
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an abundance of prognostic models for the
diagnosis and prognosis of this new coronavirus. Many studies have tried to review and
critically appraise these models.
Objectives
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the reporting completeness and transparency of
systematic reviews (SRs) of prognostic models for COVID-19.
Methods
MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos
(epistemonikos.org) were searched for systematic reviews of prognostic models for COVID-
19 until December 31, 2022. The risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to
assess the methodological quality of the selected SRs. This overview was registered in OSF as
https://osf.io/7y94c.
Results
Ten SRs were retrieved containing from 4 to 310 primary studies and from 6 to 606
prognostic models; none of the SRs synthesized the results in a meta-analysis.
Only three of the SRs had a pre-registered and publicly available protocol in a repository for
protocols and one of them had its data publicly available on the website (Figure 1). The
majority of SRs (70%) had an overall high risk of bias resulting more often from concerns in
the synthesis and reporting of findings . The overall corrected covered area (CCA)
was 6.3% which shows a small amount of overlapping (Figure 2).
Conclusions
The reporting completeness and transparency of SRs of prognostic prediction models for
COVID-19 was poor and should follow certain reporting guidelines to enhance transparency
so that clinicians can rely on them to select the appropriate prognostic model for use in each
individual patient. Pre-established protocol, detailed information on both methodology and
process followed, as well as clear reporting of findings are essential aspects to which
attention should be paid.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an abundance of prognostic models for the
diagnosis and prognosis of this new coronavirus. Many studies have tried to review and
critically appraise these models.
Objectives
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the reporting completeness and transparency of
systematic reviews (SRs) of prognostic models for COVID-19.
Methods
MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos
(epistemonikos.org) were searched for systematic reviews of prognostic models for COVID-
19 until December 31, 2022. The risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to
assess the methodological quality of the selected SRs. This overview was registered in OSF as
https://osf.io/7y94c.
Results
Ten SRs were retrieved containing from 4 to 310 primary studies and from 6 to 606
prognostic models; none of the SRs synthesized the results in a meta-analysis.
Only three of the SRs had a pre-registered and publicly available protocol in a repository for
protocols and one of them had its data publicly available on the website (Figure 1). The
majority of SRs (70%) had an overall high risk of bias resulting more often from concerns in
the synthesis and reporting of findings . The overall corrected covered area (CCA)
was 6.3% which shows a small amount of overlapping (Figure 2).
Conclusions
The reporting completeness and transparency of SRs of prognostic prediction models for
COVID-19 was poor and should follow certain reporting guidelines to enhance transparency
so that clinicians can rely on them to select the appropriate prognostic model for use in each
individual patient. Pre-established protocol, detailed information on both methodology and
process followed, as well as clear reporting of findings are essential aspects to which
attention should be paid.