Conducting and critically appraising a high-quality systematic review and Meta-analysis pertaining to COVID-19

Abstract

With constantly emerging new information regarding the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), reviewing literature related to it has become increasingly complicated and resource-intensive. In the setting of this global pandemic, clinical decisions are being guided by the results of multiple pertinent studies; however, it has been observed that these studies are often heterogenous in design and population characteristics and results of initial trials may not be replicated in subsequent studies. The resulting clinical conundrum can be resolved by high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis with a robust and reliable methodology, encapsulating and critically appraising all the available literature relevant to the clinical scenario under scrutiny. It can condense the large volume of scientific information available and can also identify the cause of differences in the degree of effect under consideration across different studies. It can identify optimal diagnostic algorithms, assess efficacy of treatment strategies, and analyze inherent factors influencing the efficacy of treatment for COVID-19. The current review aims to provide a basic guide to plan and conduct a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis pertaining to COVID-19, describing the main steps and addressing the pitfalls commonly encountered at each step. Knowledge of the basic steps would also allow the reader to critically appraise published systematic review and meta-analysis and the quality of evidence provided therein.

Keywords:

• Systematic review
• meta-analysis
• COVID-19
• research methodology

Transparency

Declaration of funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of financial/other relationships

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Author contributions

NNP conceived the idea for the manuscript, undertook literature search, co-wrote the first draft, and prepared the final draft and figures; SS conceived the idea for the manuscript, undertook literature search, co-wrote the first draft and critically appraised the final draft. Both authors agreed to be equally accountable for this publication. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.