Abstract
Objective In this umbrella systematic review, we screen existing reviews on using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to diagnose COVID-19 in patients of any age and sex (both hospitalised and ambulatory) using medical images and assess their methodological quality.
Methods We searched seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, dblp, Cochrane Library, IEEE Xplore) and two preprint services (arXiv, OSF Preprints) up to September 1, 2020. Eligible studies were identified as reviews or surveys where any metric of classification of detection of COVID-19 using AI was provided. Two independent reviewers did all steps of identification of records (titles and abstracts screening, full texts assessment, essential data extraction, and quality assessment). Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion. We qualitatively analyse methodological credibility of the reviews using AMSTAR 2 and evaluate reporting using PRISMA-DTA tools, leaving quantitative analysis for further publications.
Results We included 22 reviews out of 725 records covering 165 primary studies. This review covers 416,254 participants in total, including 50,022 diagnosed with COVID-19. The methodological quality of all eligible studies was rated as critically low. 91% of papers had significant flaws in reporting quality. More than half of the reviews did not comment on the results of previously published reviews at all. Almost three fourth of the studies included less than 10% of available studies.
Discussion In this umbrella review, we focus on the descriptive summary of included papers. Much wasting time and resources could be avoided if referring to previous reviews and following methodological guidelines. Due to the low credibility of evidence and flawed reporting, any recommendation about automated COVID-19 clinical diagnosis from medical images using AI at this point cannot be provided.
Funding PO was supported by NIH grant AI116794 (the funding body had no role in the design, in any stage of the review, or in writing the manuscript); PJ and DS did not receive any funding.
Registration The protocol of this review was registered on the OSF platform [1].
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
PO was supported by NIH grant AI116794 (the funding body had no role in the design, in any stage of the review, or in writing the manuscript); PJ and DS did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
no IRB
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
pawljmlo{at}agh.edu.pl
dawstor{at}wp.pl
patryk.orzechowski{at}gmail.com
Data Availability
Supplementary material is appended to the end of the main paper.
