4.6 Article

No evidence of important difference in summary treatment effects between COVID-19 preprints and peer-reviewed publications: a meta-epidemiological study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 162, Issue -, Pages 90-97

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.08.011

Keywords

Preprint; Peer-review; COVID-19; Meta-epidemiology; Meta -analysis; Randomized controlled trial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the difference in summary treatment effect estimates between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials in the context of COVID-19. The results showed that there was no significant difference in summary effect estimates between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials.
Objectives: Preprints became a major source of research communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate whether summary treatment effect estimates differ between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials. Study Design and Setting: A meta-epidemiological study. Data were derived from the COVID-NMA living systematic review (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified all meta-analyses evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care or placebo for patients with COVID-19 that included at least one preprint and one peer-reviewed journal article. Difference in effect estimates between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials were estimated by the ratio of odds ratio (ROR); ROR !1 indicated larger effects in preprint trials.Results: Thirty-seven meta-analyses including 114 trials (44 preprints and 70 peer-reviewed publications) were selected. The median number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) per meta-analysis was 2 (interquartile range [IQR], 2-4; maximum, 11), median sample size of RCTs was 199 (IQR, 99-478). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in summary effect estimates between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials (ROR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71-1.09; I2 = 17.8%; t2 = 0.06).Conclusion: We did not find an important difference between summary treatment effects of preprints and summary treatment effects of peer-reviewed publications. Systematic reviewers and guideline developers should assess preprint inclusion individually, accounting for risk of bias and completeness of reporting. (c) 2023 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available