Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Meta-Anal. Aug 28, 2020; 8(4): 309-319
Published online Aug 28, 2020. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v8.i4.309
Importance of reporting quality: An assessment of the COVID-19 meta-analysis laboratory hematology literature
John L Frater
John L Frater, Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, United States
Author contributions: The entire manuscript was researched and written by Frater JL .
Conflict-of-interest statement: Authors declare no conflict of interests for this article.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: This study was written according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: John L Frater, MD, Associate Professor, Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Box 8118, St. Louis, MO 63110, United States. jfrater@wustl.edu
Received: June 8, 2020
Peer-review started: June 8, 2020
First decision: July 3, 2020
Revised: July 17, 2020
Accepted: August 27, 2020
Article in press: August 27, 2020
Published online: August 28, 2020
Processing time: 93 Days and 11.3 Hours
ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS
Research background

Meta-analyses, which are underutilized in pathology and laboratory medicine, combine the data from multiple studies to produce a publication with increased statistical power. It is important for readers of meta-analyses to have the information in these studies reported in a transparent fashion. Hence the Institutes of Medicine (IOM), Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklists have been promulgated to standardize the reporting of meta-analyses.

Research motivation

Several parameters evaluated by the hematology laboratory have been identified as potential biomarkers of prognosis and outcome in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The data from many of these studies have been pooled and published as meta-analyses. Many of these studies have been identified in the preprint literature (studies that have not yet completed peer review). The reporting quality of this body of work is unknown.

Research objectives

The purposes of this study were to 1) evaluate the reporting quality of laboratory hematology-focused COVID-19 meta-analyses using the IOM, PRISMA, and MOOSE checklists and 2) compare the reporting quality of published vs. preprint studies.

Research methods

Based on a search of the literature, 19 studies were selected for analysis (9 published studies and 10 preprint studies). The reporting quality of the studies was evaluated using the IOM, PRISMA, and MOOSE checklists.

Research results

The reporting quality of the published and preprint studies was similar, and was inferior in quality to that described in similar studies on reporting quality of meta-analyses published in the pathology and medicine literature.

Research conclusions

Readers of COVID-19 laboratory hematology meta-analyses should be cognizant of their reporting quality problems, and critically evaluate them before using their information for patient care.

Research perspectives

The issue of reporting quality is of critical importance, and the assessment of reporting quality has been underreported in the medical literature. Studies similar to this one will emphasize that the use of the IOM, PRISMA, and MOOSE checklists is a simple strategy to optimize the overall quality of meta-analyses.