Secondary electronic sources demonstrated very good sensitivity for identifying studies evaluating interventions for COVID-19

Objectives: To assess the sensitivity of two secondary electronic sources of COVID-19 studies: 1) the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (https://covid-19.cochrane.org/); and, 2) the Living Overview of the Evidence (L.OVE) COVID-19 platform (https://iloveevidence.com/). Study design and setting: We identified reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) assessing preventive interventions or treatment for COVID-19. The reference standard comprised all reports included in the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com), in two major living systematic reviews of RCTs assessing pharmacologic treatment of COVID-19, or identified in either of the two secondary sources evaluated. The search for all sources was conducted through September 7, 2020. Our primary outcome was the proportion of the reports included in the reference standard that were identified by each secondary source. Results: We identified 680 reports, 91 RCT reports, 97 RCT protocols, and 492 OS reports. The Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register identified 88% [95% confidence interval, 79-94] of the RCT reports, 90% [82-95] of the RCT protocols, and 82% [78-85] of the OS reports. The L.OVE platform identified 100% [97-100] of the RCT reports and RCT protocols and 100% [99-100] of the OS reports. Conclusion: These platforms proved to be a viable screening alternative to searching every individual source. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

The study assessed the sensitivity of two secondary electronic sources of COVID-19 studies, with the L.OVE platform showing better performance in identifying research reports.