Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO?

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Aim of this study was to assess the registration of orthodontic systematic reviews in PROSPERO. METHOD: Seven databases were searched for orthodontic systematic reviews published in 2012-2016. After duplicate study selection and data extraction, descriptive statistics, followed by chi-square/Fisher exact tests were calculated. Finally, bivariable/multivariable regression with relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used. RESULTS: A total of 182 orthodontic systematic reviews were identified, 37 (20.3%) of which were registered in PROSPERO, with registration rates ranging from 4.3% in 2012 to 37.0% in 2016. Differences in review registration were found according to publication year, geographic origin, multicentre status, funding, and journal category. After controlling for confounders, each additional year was associated with increased registration probability (RR = 1.51; 95% CI = 1.19-1.93). Reviews from South America were more likely to be registered than reviews from Europe (RR = 1.49; 95% CI = 1.06-2.11). Finally, reviews published in orthodontic specialty journals were more likely to be registered than reviews in general dentistry journals (RR = 1.87; 95% CI = 1.02-3.49). CONCLUSIONS: A small percentage of orthodontic systematic reviews was registered a priori, although improvement signs have been seen since the initiation of PROSPERO.

More systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO each year, but few records' status was up-to-date

“…There were differences in the proportion of registered SRs depending on the country (the proportion of registered SRs being highest for countries of authors advocating the use of PROSPERO, i.e., the United Kingdom [6,19], Australia [7], or Canada [10]), but not on the review focus (most SRs probably following guidance originally aimed at SRs of interventions). Registered SRs did not notably differ from SRs that 20.3% had been registered in PROSPERO overall and the registration rate increased from 4.3% in 2012 to 37.0% in 2016 [20]. These figures demonstrate that PROSPERO nowadays is well known and highly demanded, although registration of SRs currently is voluntary.…”

Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality

“…Additionally, data were extracted on publication year, number of authors, involvement of a statistician/epidemiologist, inclusion of multiple centers, funding, publication journal, and on whether the systematic review was registered in PROSPERO. The results pertaining to the registration rate of orthodontic systematic reviews and possible predictors for registration have been previously reported [19].…”

Systematic reviews in restorative dentistry: discussing relevant aspects

“…Moreover, estimates by Tsujimoto et al showed there was a small proportion of prospective registers of SRs published in high‐impact journals . In dentistry, the estimates of Sideri et al provided evidence that a small percentage of orthodontic SRs were registered, demonstrating that more initiatives should be encouraged by dental journals, researchers, educators, funding agencies and peer reviewers …”

“…37 In dentistry, the estimates of Sideri et al provided evidence that a small percentage of orthodontic SRs were registered, demonstrating that more initiatives should be encouraged by dental journals, researchers, educators, funding agencies and peer reviewers. 10 Regarding the examples in Table 1 22,24 and one compared glass ionomer cement and direct composite restorations. 23 odology as the starting point to conduct preclinical SRs.…”

“…[6][7][8] Although many SRs are published in dentistry, important elements of SRs, such as the use of the PRISMA Statement to facilitate complete and transparent reporting and prospective registration of SR protocols through PROSPERO (crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), as another measure of conduct transparency, are scarcely disclosed. 9,10 This suggests that there is room for improvement in the conduct and reporting of SRs, and consequently the effort of all stakeholders is necessary to implement the tools already available. This article aims to discuss certain key aspects that should be taken in account by systematic reviewers in dentistry to improve the conduct and reporting of SRs, and to make their reviews are more clinically helpful.…”