text: Reporting and methodological quality of COVID 19 systematic reviews needs to be improved an evidence mapping To assess the reporting and methodological quality of COVID 19 systematic reviews and to analyze trends and gaps in the quality clinical topics author countries and populations of the reviews using an evidence mapping approach A structured search for systematic reviews concerning COVID 19 was performed using PubMed Embase Cochrane Library Campbell Library Web of Science CBM WanFang Data CNKI and CQVIP from inception until June 2020 The quality of each review was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 AMSTAR 2 checklist and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses PRISMA checklist In total 243 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria over 50 of which 128 52 7 were from 14 developing countries with China contributing the most reviews 76 31 3 In terms of methodological quality of the studies 30 12 3 were of moderate quality 63 25 9 were of low quality and 150 61 7 were of critically low quality In terms of reporting quality the median interquartile range PRISMA score was 14 10 18 Regarding the topics of the reviews 24 9 9 focused on the prevalence of COVID 19 69 28 4 focused on the clinical manifestations 30 12 3 focused on etiology 43 17 7 focused on diagnosis 65 26 7 focused on treatment 104 42 8 focused on prognosis and 25 10 3 focused on prevention These studies mainly focused on general patients with COVID 19 161 66 3 followed by children 22 9 1 and pregnant patients 18 7 4 This study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID 19 summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics author countries and study populations 