Can We Really Trust the Findings of the COVID-19 Research? Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published on COVID-19
Joshy, A. S.; Thomas, C.; Surendran, S.; Undela, K.
Show abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published on Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) and to investigate the reasons behind compromising the quality, if found. MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify the Randomized Controlled Trails published on Coronavirus Disease-19 between 1st Dec 2019 to 31st Aug 2021. Research articles met with study criteria were included in the study. Assessment of quality of randomized controlled trials was done using modified Jadad scale. Results21,259 records of randomized controlled trials were identified through database searching, out of which 90 randomized controlled trials were included in the study and, 34 (37.8%) were of high-quality, 46 (51.1%) were of moderate quality, and 10 (11.1 %) were of low-quality studies. There were 40 (44.4%), 38 (42.2%), and 12 (13.3%) randomized controlled trials published in the early, middle, and late terms with Jadad score 5.12{+/-}1.67, 5.34{+/-}1.32, and 5.68{+/-}1.50 respectively (P=0.52). When comparing the blinding status, appropriate blinding, and methods to evaluate adverse events in randomized controlled trials with modified Jadad score, a significant difference was observed (P<0.001). A significant moderate positive correlation was found between the impact factor of the journal and the modified Jadad scale score (R2= 0.48, P<0.001). ConclusionFindings from our study indicate that accelerated publication of Coronavirus Disease-19 researches along with the fast-track review process has resulted in lowering study quality scores. With the emergence of stronger evidence, Coronavirus Disease-19 clinical studies with lower methodological quality should be revisited. Impacts on practiceO_LIThere have been numerous sacrifices and tragedies in the clinical response to covid-19. Revising the quality of randomized controlled trials published on COVID-19 as we enter the third wave of the pandemic and beyond, will improve the evidence-based practice of medications for clinical pharmacy services. C_LIO_LICOVID-19 Patients will benefit from evidence-based pharmaceutical care through reduced drug-related problems. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 96%
- Protocol for the systematic review of the Pneumocystis jirovecii -associated pneumonia in non-HIV immunocompromised patients 95%
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 96%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 96%
- An Analysis of Controlled Human Infection Studies Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 92%
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 92%
- Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients? Protocol for a mixed method systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 97%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 96%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Nosocomial Infections Among Patients with COVID-19, SARS and MERS: A Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis 92%
- A Novel Triage Tool of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Diagnosis Aid System for Suspected COVID-19 Pneumonia in Fever Clinics 90%
- Chest Computed Tomography for the Diagnosis of Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.