Most published meta-analyses were made available within two years of protocol registration

Andersen, Mikkel Zola; Fonnes, Siv; Andresen, Kristoffer; Rosenberg, Jacob

doi:10.1016/j.eujim.2021.101342

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering that our meta-research focused on preventive measures in COVID-19 and also included preprint publications, it is difficult to compare our findings with the results of Andersen et al . It further remains unclear how many of the PROSPERO registrations in our sample have been stopped before completion or rejected for publication or where still under ‘peer review’, whereas in Andersen et al , 18 the study sample consisted only of meta-analyses that have all been published successfully.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…To our knowledge, there is no other meta-research project published or ongoing that describes the characteristics of systematic reviews of COVID-19 prevention measures at the protocol stage (ie, when registered in PROSPERO) and for published systematic reviews. For example, Andersen et al 18 searched for published meta-analyses indexed in the PubMed database ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ ) and for corresponding a priori registered PROSPERO entries focusing on any clinical intervention—but before the COVID-19 crisis. In this meta-research, one-third of the 2475 meta-analyses identified were affiliated with institutions in England or China, followed by another third from USA, Canada, Australia and Brazil.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are basically the same countries we also identified as the ‘leaders in the pandemic’—except for Australia, where the COVID-19 incidence was very low during the early phase of the pandemic. 19 Furthermore, approximately 20% of the meta-analyses in Andersen et al 18 were published within 0 to 9 months after registration in PROSPERO. Considering that our meta-research focused on preventive measures in COVID-19 and also included preprint publications, it is difficult to compare our findings with the results of Andersen et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Characteristics of registered and published systematic reviews focusing on the prevention of COVID-19: a meta-research study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveWe investigated characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) assessing measures to prevent COVID-19 by (1) identifying SR registrations in Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), (2) identifying published SRs in COVID-19 Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) and (3) estimating the proportion of PROSPERO registrations published as full SR between 8 and 16 months after registration.Study designThis meta-research study is part of the German CEOsys project, www.covid-evidenz.de. We searched PROSPERO entries registered between 1 January 2020 and 31 August 2020, and we searched COVID-19 L-OVE for published SRs (search date: 5 May 2021) focusing on measures to prevent COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The two samples were screened for eligibility and key characteristics were extracted and summarised.ResultsOf 612 PROSPERO registrations, 47 focused on prevention and were included. The preventive measures included public health interventions (20), followed by personal protective equipment (10), vaccinations (9) and others (8). In total, 13 of 47 (28%) PROSPERO registrations had been published as full SR (as preprint only (6), as peer-reviewed article only (6), as preprint and peer-reviewed article (1)). Median time between PROSPERO registration and publication was 5 months for peer-reviewed SRs and 2 months for preprints.Of the 2182 entries identified in COVID-19 L-OVE, 51 published SRs focused on prevention and were included. Similar to the PROSPERO sample, most published SRs focused on public health interventions (21). The number of included primary studies ranged between 0 and 64 (median: 7). Nine published SRs did not include any studies because of a lack of primary studies.ConclusionConsidering the urgent information needs of policymakers and the public, our findings reveal the high-speed publication of preprints and lack of primary studies in the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. Further meta-research on COVID-19 SRs is important to improve research efficiency among researchers across the world.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021240423.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Characteristics of registered and published systematic reviews focusing on the prevention of COVID-19: a meta-research study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Andersen et al (13) reported that few authors updated their review status in PROSPERO after publishing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY®) at two years: an analysis of 3,082 registered protocols on inplasy.com, platform features, and website statistics

Canellas

Ritto

Rodolico

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background INPLASY® is an international platform for registration of systematic review and meta-analysis protocols launched in March 2020. INPLASY® provides an online database where the protocols are maintained as a permanent public record and can be accessed on the website (www.inplasy.com). Methods We described the database features and registered information of all records published since the launch of the registry up to March 31st, 2022. Additionally, the website statistics dataset was analysed to explore user experience and promote data transparency. Results A total of 3082 records were registered in INPLASY®, and more than 91% of the protocols were published within 24 hours. Most submissions were from China, followed by Portugal, Brazil, Taiwan, and Spain. INPLASY® website received a total of 240,855 page views from 37,647 visitors during the first two years. These accesses were from 139 countries worldwide. Most of the accesses were from China, followed by The United States, Brazil, and Germany. The review status ‘‘completed and published’’ was observed in 323 protocols, and these studies were published in 156 different scientific peer-reviewed journals. The INPLASY® features included: (i) INPLASY® identifier, a unique protocol number; (ii) DOI number, the URL of the protocol linked to a specific DOI; (iii) ORCID update, INPLASY® updates the authors' ORCID page including their protocol automatically; and (iv) search tools, the protocols are freely accessible on www.inplasy.com. Conclusions The INPLASY® has several practical and useful features that should be considered when planning the registration of a systematic review protocol. Furthermore, the sharp increase in the number of protocols registered in INPLASY® in the first two years and the database statistics demonstrate that INPLASY® has become an important source of systematic review protocols. Therefore, authors should access INPLASY® before planning a future review study, either to avoid unintended duplication of efforts, or to obtain registration in a timely manner.

show abstract

“…Andersen et al published a SLR that included previous SLR/MA registered in PROSPERO. They showed that the median time from the development of the SLR/MA protocol until the publication of the final article was of 16 months (Andersen et al, 2021). However, if it was a Cochrane review, the median time widened to 24 months (Andersen et al, 2020).…”

Section: Publish the Systematic Literature Review/meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

A Practical Guide to Perform a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

Ortiz

Camacho

Rojas

et al. 2021

ppcrj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, systematic literature reviews/meta-analyses of clinical trials are considered the best evidence in clinical research; thus, if performed appropriately, they can save resources by avoiding the development of unnecessary clinical trials. Nevertheless, to carry out a systematic literature review /meta-analysis, researchers must deeply understand its methodology. This narrative review aims to act as a learning tool for new researchers to perform systematic literature reviews/meta-analyses for categorical variables, addressing this matter in a step-by-step fashion using STATA 17. Readers must understand that the scope of this topic is much broader. Therefore, concepts such as meta-analysis for numerical outcomes or meta-analysis for survival analysis are not addressed. The authors hope that the information presented in this manuscript serves as pillars to enhance research worldwide, especially in places where formal research training is uncommon. If readers want to extend their knowledge regarding this subject, we recommend reading the "The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Center for Reviews and Dissemination" or the book "Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for systematic reviews.

show abstract

Most published meta-analyses were made available within two years of protocol registration

Cited by 14 publications

References 34 publications

Characteristics of registered and published systematic reviews focusing on the prevention of COVID-19: a meta-research study

Characteristics of registered and published systematic reviews focusing on the prevention of COVID-19: a meta-research study

The International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY®) at two years: an analysis of 3,082 registered protocols on inplasy.com, platform features, and website statistics

A Practical Guide to Perform a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About