Importance of reporting quality: An assessment of the COVID-19 meta-analysis laboratory hematology literature

摘要

BACKGROUND Meta-analysis,a form of quantitative review,is an attempt to combine data from multiple independent studies to improve statistical power.Because of the complexity of process involved in study selection,data analysis,and evaluation of bias and heterogeneity,checklists have been prepared by the Institutes of Medicine(IOM),Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Metaanalyses(PRISMA),and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology(MOOSE)to standardize the reporting quality of a meta-analysis.AIM To use these checklists to assess the reporting quality of the coronavirus disease-2019(COVID-19)meta-analysis literature relevant to laboratory hematology.METHODS After a search of the literature 19 studies were selected for analysis,including 10 studies appearing in the preprint literature(studies that can be identified by database search but have not yet completed peer review).RESULTS The average IOM(76%of required elements completed),PRISMA(75%of required elements completed),and MOOSE(60%of required elements completed)scores enumerated demonstrated a reporting quality inferior to that of earlier reports of pathology and medicine meta-analyses.There was no statistically significant difference in performance between accepted/published and preprint studies.Comparison of the results of PRISMA and MOOSE studies demonstrated a weak positive correlation(Pearson’s correlation coefficient=0.39).CONCLUSION The most common deficits in the studies included sensitivity analysis,assessment for bias,and details of the search strategy.Although the COVID-19 laboratory hematology meta-analysis literature can be a helpful source of information,readers should be aware of these reporting quality deficits.