Systematic reviews of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 continue to be poorly conducted and reported: a systematic review

To suggest possible approaches to combatting the impact of the COVID-19 infodemic to prevent research waste in future health emergencies and in everyday research and practice. Systematic review. The Epistemonikos database was searched in June 2021 for systematic reviews on the effectiveness of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved references with disagreements resolved by discussion. Data extraction was completed by one reviewer with a proportion checked by a second. We used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews to assess the quality of conduct and reporting of included reviews. Fifty one systematic reviews are included with 193 individual studies included within the systematic reviews. There was considerable duplication of effort; multiple reviews were conducted at the same time with inconsistencies in the evidence included. The reviews were of low methodological quality, poorly reported, and did not adhere to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidance. Researchers need to conduct, appraise, interpret, and disseminate systematic reviews better. All in the research community (researchers, peer-reviewers, journal editors, funders, decision makers, clinicians, journalists, and the public) need to work together to facilitate the conduct of robust systematic reviews that are published and communicated in a timely manner, reducing research duplication and waste, increasing transparency and accessibility of all systematic reviews. [Display omitted] •Funders should invest in, build, and improve methodological infrastructure.•Journal editors/peer reviewers should demand robust methods and ensure relevant guidelines are used.•Researchers need to stop, look, listen, and think about the context of their research and how it builds on existing evidence while ensuring research quality and reducing research waste.•Health care professionals and decision makers need to demand the best evidence and know where to find it.•Public and patients need to ask questions about the evidence, understand research better, and get involved.•Media need to build relationships with the research community and report responsibly.