Poor reporting quality of observational clinical studies comparing treatments of COVID-19 – a retrospective cross-sectional study
Abstract
Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific world is in urgent need for new evidence on the treatment of COVID patients. The reporting quality is crucial for transparent scientific publication. Concerns of data integrity, methodology and transparency were raised. Here, we assessed the adherence of observational studies comparing treatments of COVID 19 to the STROBE checklist in 2020. Methods Design: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study. Setting: We conducted a systematic literature search in the Medline database. This study was performed at the RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Department of Anaesthesiology Participants: We extracted all observational studies on the treatment of COVID-19 patients from the year 2020. Main outcome measures: The adherence of each publication to the STROBE checklist items was analysed. The journals’ impact factor (IF), the country of origin, the kind of investigated treatment and the month of publication were assessed. Results We analysed 147 observational studies and found a mean adherence of 45.6% to the STROBE checklist items. The percentage adherence per publication correlated significantly with the journals’ IF (point estimate for the difference between 1 st and 4 th quartile 11.07%, 95% CI 5.12 to 17.02, p < 0.001). U.S. American authors gained significantly higher adherence to the checklist than Chinese authors, mean difference 9.10% (SD 2.85%, p = 0.023). Conclusions We conclude a poor reporting quality of…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 19 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Global, regional, and national burden of hepatitis B, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019
- A meta‐analysis of anal cancer incidence by risk group: Toward a unified anal cancer risk scale
- Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021
- Exercise interventions in Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- Prognostic Significance of Carbonic Anhydrase IX Expression in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis
- Glucocorticoid Resistance: Is It a Requisite for Increased Cytokine Production in Depression? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.