An assessment of the extent to which the contents of PROSPERO records meet the systematic review protocol reporting items in PRISMA-P

Booth, Alison L.; Mitchell, Alex; Mott, Andrew; James, Sophie; Cockayne, Sarah; Gascoyne, Samantha; McDaid, Catriona

doi:10.12688/f1000research.25181.2

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A strength of our study is that we have assessed protocol registration from a sample of published SRs. This in contrast with most previous studies, that have predominantly assessed SR protocol registration through PROSPERO records (13,14,30,31). However, a limitation of this approach is that some publications might not have reported protocol registration in their manuscript.…”

Section: Strenghts and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Ten years after the launch of PROSPERO, the number of protocol registrations for systematic reviews is increasing (10,13). A limited number of studies has assessed SR protocol registration (10,(13)(14)(15). Most of these studies, assessed whether a registered protocol resulted in a published SR (10,13,14).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A limited number of studies has assessed SR protocol registration (10,(13)(14)(15). Most of these studies, assessed whether a registered protocol resulted in a published SR (10,13,14). One interesting exception is a study from 2015 that revealed that only 20% of the published SRs had a registered protocol (15).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Score After Ten Years of Registration of Systematic Review Protocols

Braak

Ghannad

Orelio

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched ten years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status. Methods: PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics; and protocol registration status was performed. Both descriptive and multivariate comparative statistical analysis were performed.Results: A total of 357 SRs (2020: n=163; 2021: n=194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported PRISMA have higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.6; 95% CI: 1.20 to 5.69). SRs with a higher journal impact factor, have a higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.23). Of the 19 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 37% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n=129; 96%).Conclusions: We found that only 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent reporting of use of PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. Further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols amongst different stakeholders, to guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration.Protocol registration: osf.io/9kj7r/

show abstract

Section: Strenghts and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Score After Ten Years of Registration of Systematic Review Protocols

Braak

Ghannad

Orelio

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like primary studies, they may also be constrained by poor reporting or poor conduct. Such limitations are highlighted with respect to clinical systematic reviews, for example with protocols in PROSPERO not corresponding to the PRISMA-P guidelines, and outcome discrepancies between the protocol and final publication [ 54 , 55 ]. Therefore, it is important that researchers continue to assess SR methodology and seek improvements [ 56 – 58 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of conducting preclinical systematic reviews on researchers and their research: A mixed method case study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are cornerstones of evidence-based medicine and have contributed significantly to breakthroughs since the 1980’s. However, preclinical SRs remain relatively rare despite their many advantages. Since 2011 the Dutch health funding organisation (ZonMw) has run a grant scheme dedicated to promoting the training, coaching and conduct of preclinical SRs. Our study focuses on this funding scheme to investigate the relevance, effects and benefits of conducting preclinical SRs on researchers and their research. Methods We recruited researchers who attended funded preclinical SR workshops and who conducted, are still conducting, or prematurely stopped a SR with funded coaching. We gathered data using online questionnaires followed by semi-structured interviews. Both aimed to explore the impact of conducting a SR on researchers’ subsequent work, attitudes, and views about their research field. Data-analysis was performed using Excel and ATLAS.ti. Results Conducting preclinical SRs had two distinct types of impact. First, the researchers acquired new skills and insights, leading to a change in mindset regarding the quality of animal research. This was mainly seen in the way participants planned, conducted and reported their subsequent animal studies, which were more transparent and of a higher quality than their previous work. Second, participants were eager to share their newly acquired knowledge within their laboratories and to advocate for change within their research teams and fields of interest. In particular, they emphasised the need for preclinical SRs and improved experimental design within preclinical research, promoting these through education and published opinion papers. Conclusion Being trained and coached in the conduct of preclinical SRs appears to be a contributing factor to many beneficial changes which will impact the quality of preclinical research in the long-term. Our findings suggest that this ZonMw funding scheme is helpful in improving the quality and transparency of preclinical research. Similar funding schemes should be encouraged, preferably by a broader group of funders or financers, in the future.

show abstract

“…The registration number was INPLASY2020120043. The protocol is reported following the guidelines on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISM-P. [ 10 ] We will update our protocol for any changes in the entire research process if needed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen for treating COVID-19

Zhang

et al. 2021

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in 2019, it has swept the world with rapid development and is one of the infectious diseases that seriously threatened global public health. Because of the complex pathogenesis, high infectivity, and high fatality rate of COVID-19, there are no effective treatments for this epidemic at present. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has a long clinical history in the prevention and treatment of such acute infectious diseases. The therapeutic effect of Lianhua Qingwen (LHQW) on this new coronary pneumonia has attracted the attention of all walks of life, and relevant research reports continue to appear. Here, we intend to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy of LHQW in COVID-19 patients. Methods: We will search each database from the built-in until Dec 2020. The English literature mainly search the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science, while the Chinese literature come from CNKI, VIP, Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), and Wan Fang database. Simultaneously, we will retrieve clinical registration tests. This study only screens the RCT of LHQW against COVID-19 and evaluates its efficacy and safety. We will use the Cochrane Handbook to systematically review interventions to assess the risk of bias. The protocol will be reported according to the approach and preferred report items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA - P). Finally, RevMan software version 5.3 will be used for meta-analysis. Results: The systematic review and meta-analysis aim to review and pool current clinical outcomes of LHQW for treating COVID-19. Conclusion: This study will provide further evidence for the efficacy and safety of LHQW in the treatment of COVID-19. INPLASY Registration number: INPLASY2020120043.

show abstract

An assessment of the extent to which the contents of PROSPERO records meet the systematic review protocol reporting items in PRISMA-P

Cited by 14 publications

References 19 publications

The Score After Ten Years of Registration of Systematic Review Protocols

The Score After Ten Years of Registration of Systematic Review Protocols

The impact of conducting preclinical systematic reviews on researchers and their research: A mixed method case study

Traditional Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen for treating COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About