Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research

The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0-25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0-156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p<0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence. During the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic there was a need for rapid dissemination of clinical findings. Here, Jung, Di Santo et al. perform a systematic review and cohort study providing evidence for lower methodological quality scores and faster time to publication of clinical studies related to COVID-19 than comparable studies.

Automated summary

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a need for rapid dissemination of clinical findings. Jung, Di Santo et al. conducted a systematic review and cohort study, providing evidence for lower methodological quality scores and faster time to publication of clinical studies related to COVID-19 compared to comparable studies.