Incorporating preprints in systematic reviews: a preliminary study of a novel method for rapid evidence synthesis
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVES: By October 1, 2024, over 450,000 COVID-19 manuscripts were published, with 10% posted as unreviewed preprints. While they accelerate knowledge sharing, their inconsistent quality complicates systematic studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We propose a 2-stage method to include preprints in meta-analyses. In Stage A, preprints are integrated through restriction or imputation and weighted by a confidence score reflecting their publication likelihood. In Stage B, we assess and adjust for potential publication or reporting biases. RESULTS: This preliminary study employed a 2-stage procedure validated with 2 COVID-19 treatment case studies. For hydroxychloroquine, the relative risk (RR) was 1.06 [95% CI: 0.62, 1.80], suggesting no mortality benefit over placebo. For corticosteroids, the RR was 0.88 [95% CI: 0.62, 1.27], which, while not statistically significant, aligns with evidence supporting a mortality benefit. DISCUSSION: Our research aims to bridge a significant methodological gap by providing a solution for timely evidence synthesis, particularly in the face of the overwhelming number of publications surrounding COVID-19. CONCLUSION: This preliminary study presents a method to efficiently synthesize COVID-19 research, including non-peer-reviewed preprints, to support clinical and policy decisions amidst the information surge.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Incorporating preprints in systematic reviews: a preliminary study of a novel method for rapid evidence synthesis
- Date Crossref
- 03/09/2025
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.