included.Four studies (21%) were probably missed during the review process, and the other 15 (79%) were published after their search. DiscussionThis study presents a particular case in which, in less than 6 months, the literature was flooded with more systematic reviews than primary studies trying to answer a very specific clinical question, such as the imaging findings in children with COVID-19.Replication of systematic reviews may be appropriate to verify their findings or to extend or narrow the question they are trying to answer. 1 However, needless repetition is wasteful.Initiatives like the PROSPERO database were created so authors could identify ongoing systematic reviews and perhaps stop the development of a new, unnecessary study. 3,4plication at a massive level, which has happened with COVID-19, is unjustified and may be unethical. 1,5,6None of the systematic reviews included the totality of primary studies, which may be partly explained by the rapid rate of reporting of new studies but also by limitations of search strategies.This also highlights how quickly published reviews can become obsolete if they are not continuously updated.This study has limitations.Our analysis cannot provide clinical guidance regarding the imaging findings of children with COVID-19.The findings are also limited to the date of our search.