Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study

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

“…Tsujimoto et al [15] assessed the registration rate of 284 systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals, but focused on the rate of statistically significant results as a proxy for outcome reporting bias and not on overall review quality. The finding that registration in PROSPERO was associated with higher review quality might be possibly explained by the fact that a detailed protocol form that delineates all review procedures from formulation of a research question to synthesis and dissemination of the results has to be completed and submitted to PROSPERO by the review authors.…”

“…The recent study of Tsujimoto et al [15] assessed the PROSPERO registration rate of systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals and indicated that only 21% of them had their protocols registered, but could not find any evidence of outcome reporting bias or any association with PROSPERO registration and citation of the reporting guidelines for systematic reviews. However, no data specific to the field of orthodontics was provided, while the inclusion of only high-impact journals might provide an overly optimistic image of protocol registration, due to considerable differences of systematic review quality according to journal characteristics [16,17].…”

“…However, no data specific to the field of orthodontics was provided, while the inclusion of only high-impact journals might provide an overly optimistic image of protocol registration, due to considerable differences of systematic review quality according to journal characteristics [16,17]. Finallly, the study of Tsujimoto et al [15] confined its analyses to the identification of predictors for review registration, but did not actually appraise the quality of the published systematic reviews. To evaluate the quality of systematic reviews, several tools have been suggested, with one of the most widely-accepted ones being the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, which incorporates an 11-item checklist [18].…”

Systematic reviews in restorative dentistry: discussing relevant aspects

“…In contrast, there was no impact in reporting quality . 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 …”

“…there was a small proportion of prospective registers of SRs published in high-impact journals. 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.…”