Prospective protocol registration should be required for systematic reviews in dermatology literature

Osto, Muhammad; Edriss, Manar; Hamzavi, Iltefat

doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2021.11.016

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among 134 surgery journals indexed in the 2009 Journal Citation Report, the Instructions for Authors of only 1 journal mentioned registration for systematic reviews [ 17 ]. Out of 80 dermatology journals, 38.8% mentioned systematic reviews in their author guidelines, while only 2 (2.5%) required PROSPERO registration in their author guidelines [ 18 ]. Aligning with previous studies, journals did not provide guidelines for systematic review authors or endorsement of relevant guidelines to encourage improving in reporting and registration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The status quo of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals in Korea: a study focused on protocol registration and GRADE use

Han¹,

Kim²,

Hwang³

et al. 2022

Epidemiol Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study investigated the status quo of systematic reviews published in major journals in Korea from the perspective of protocol registration and adopting the grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system. Methods:We examined systematic reviews published in Korea's top 15 medical journals from 2018 to 2021.Teams of two reviewers assessed the study eligibility criteria and extracted data independently and in duplicate.We collected the information on study characteristics, protocol registration, GRADE use of reviews included, and reviewed the "Instructions to Authors" of the selected journals to assess any guidance related to systematic reviews.Results: Out of the 126 identified reviews, 18 (14.3%) reported that they registered or published their protocol.Only 5 (4.0%) rated the certainty of evidence; and all 5 used the GRADE system. Only 6 of 15 journals mentioned systematic reviews in their "Instructions for Authors." Six journals endorsed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for systematic review reporting; however, 2 were mandatory, 3 were recommended, and 1 was unclear. None of the journals included mentioned protocol registration or certainty of evidence in their authors' guidelines. Conclusion:Overall, the proportion of prior protocol registration of systematic reviews and adoption of the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence was very low. Our study highlights the adherence to the systematic review standards of medical journals in Korea, including a prior protocol registration and certainty of evidence assessment. Our review helps improve the quality of systematic reviews in Korea.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%