ABSTRACT
Objectives: This study examines the conduct of systematic reviews during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, including compliance to protocol registration and duplication of reviews on similar topics. The methodological and reporting quality were also explored. Methods: A cross-sectional, bibliometric study was undertaken of all systematic review manuscripts on a COVID-19 intervention published between January 1st and June 30th, 2020. Protocol registration on a publicly accessible database was recorded. Duplication was determined by systematically recording the number of reviews published on each topic of analysis. Methodological quality and reporting quality were assessed using the AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA 2009 instruments, respectively. Results: Thirty-one eligible systematic reviews were identified during the inclusion period. The protocol of only four (12.9%) studies was registered on a publicly accessible database. Duplication was frequent, with 15 (48.4%) of the 31 included studies focusing on either hydroxychloroquine (and/or chloroquine) or corticosteroids. Only one study (3.2%) was of "high" methodological quality, four (12.9%) were "low" quality, and the remainder (n = 26, 83.9%) were of "critically low" quality. The median completeness of reporting was 20 out of 27 items (74.1%) with a range of 5-26 (interquartile range: 14-23). Conclusion: Systematic reviews during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic were uncommonly registered, frequently duplicated, and mostly of low methodological quality. In contrast, the reporting quality of manuscripts was generally good but varied substantially across published reports. There is a need for heightened stewardship of systematic review research, particularly during times of medical crisis where the generation of primary evidence may be rapid and unstable.
ABSTRACT
Objects passed from one player to another have not been assessed for their ability to transmit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We found that the surface of sport balls, notably a football, tennis ball, golf ball, and cricket ball could not harbour inactivated virus when it was swabbed onto the surface, even for 30 âs. However, when high concentrations of 5000 âdC/mL and 10,000 âdC/mL are directly pipetted onto the balls, it could be detected after for short time periods. Sports objects can only harbour inactivated SARS-CoV-2 under specific, directly transferred conditions, but wiping with a dry tissue or moist 'baby wipe' or dropping and rolling the balls removes all detectable viral traces. This has helpful implications to sporting events.