Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency

Objective: To investigate the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and to compare this with a living guidelines approach. Study Design and Setting: In this cross-sectional study, we searched Europe PMC on May 20, 2021 for systematic reviews of remdesivir (including preprints, living review updates). Completeness and currency were based on the inclusion of four major randomized trials of remdesivir available at the time of publication of the review (including as preliminary results and preprints). Results: We included 38 reviews (45 reports), equivalent to a new publication every 9 days. 23 (51%) reports were out of date at the time of publication. Eleven reviews that were current on publication had a median survival time of 10 days (range 4-57). A third of reviews cited other systematic reviews, but only four provided justifications for why another review was necessary. Eight (21%) of the reviews were registered in PROSPERO. The Australian COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce living guidelines were updated within 14 days for three of the remdesivir trials, and within 28 days for the fourth. Conclusion: There was considerable duplication of systematic reviews of remdesivir, and half were already out of date at the time of publication. (c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

This study investigated the completeness and currency of published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 and compared it with a living guidelines approach. The results showed a significant amount of duplication of systematic reviews and a majority of them were already out of date at the time of publication.