Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater.
Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time.
Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. Yiqiao Xin ORCID: /0000-0001-5856-3103 6īMC Medicine volume 19, Article number: 46 ( 2021)įollowing the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research.Following the science? Comparison of methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 and other research from the first wave of the pandemic
0 kommentar(er)
