RESUMO
Objectives: A LSR is a systematic review that is continually updated, incorporating new evidence as it becomes available. They are conducted in research areas where new evidence is constantly emerging on diagnostic methods, treatments, and outcomes. The objective of this study was to understand the current application of LSRs across research areas. Method(s): Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify LSRs. Only the most recent update of a LSR was included. Data regarding the indication, intervention, methods, frequency of updates, and funding were extracted. Result(s): Of the 1,243 records identified, 126 LSRs were included for analysis. The first LSR was published in 2015, with a significant increase in the number of LSRs published starting in 2020, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. The most common indication represented by LSRs was COVID-19 (72%), followed by oncology (10%). Other indications with LSRs included chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, and skin disorders, among others. While most oncology LSRs identified interventional randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) (85%), only 54% of COVID-19 LSRs were restricted to interventional studies, including a combination of RCTS and real-world observational studies. Oncology LSRs included common cancers such as prostate, renal, or multiple myeloma. Of the reviews that reported update frequency, 28% planned monthly, 12% yearly, and 12% weekly updates. Only 46% of LSRs were registered. The majority of LSRs were funded by government or research organizations. Objectives of LSRs varied, with most stating the need to maintain up-to-date databases;however, several studies used LSRs to facilitate network meta-analysis or mixed treatment comparisons. Conclusion(s): While LSRs were introduced over five years ago, their frequency increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Apart from COVID-19, LSRs are commonly used in oncology settings. LSRs provide high-level, relevant, and up-to-date evidence, making them a useful tool for clinical and real-world research.Copyright © 2023
RESUMO
Objectives: Since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, there has been an abundance of publications describing factors affecting outcomes from COVID-19. We describe challenges encountered while undertaking an SLR on comorbidities and COVID-19 outcomes. Methods: Using PRISMA guidelines and pre-specified criteria, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were searched on December 7, 2020 to identify studies that included epidemiology, healthcare resource utilization, and mortality related to COVID-19 among patients with either asthma or COPD. Studies were not restricted by language. Preprints and s were excluded. Results: 258 full-text articles reported COVID-19-related outcomes at the cut-off date. Several challenges were identified during the analysis of this SLR. Firstly, differing definitions and identification of relevant populations exist both when identifying COVID-19 through RT-PCR (RT-PCR: n=218;not-specified: n=40), but more commonly when identifying comorbidities. A limited number of studies (14/258) reported clinically confirmed diagnoses of asthma or COPD through primary care records;chart reviews (n=146) were most often used to identify comorbidities. It was not possible to account for geographic differences in definitions of comorbidities. These differing definitions relates to the quality of studies, with a minority using established databases/registries (n=54) and a majority being retrospective, single-center studies (n=110). Secondly, significant heterogeneity in the COVID-19 population existed with patients identified as hospitalized (n=135) or as ICU admissions (n=12);specifically pediatric (n=7) or elderly (n=6);others as testing COVID-19 positive (n=49). Thirdly, many studies collected data from the start of the pandemic within their region despite an evolution in best practices. Finally, the rapidity of COVID-19 research, with number of studies doubling over 6 months, immediately outdates any analysis. Conclusions: Challenges exist when evaluating COVID-19 research. Heterogeneity in datasets, lack of quality studies, and rapidity of research may affect outcomes of interest and should be considered in this evolving COVID-19 landscape.