Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry

Abstract

Background: The aims of this study were to assess whether the previous registration of a systematic review (SR) is associated with the improvement of the quality of the report of SRs and whether SR registration reduced outcome reporting bias. Methods: We performed a search in PubMed for SRs in dentistry indexed in 2017. Data related to SR registration and reporting characteristics were extracted. We analyzed if the reporting of 21 characteristics of included SRs was associated with the prospective registration of protocols or reporting of a previously established protocol. The association between prospective registering of protocols, reporting of funding and number of included studies versus outcome reporting bias was tested via multivariable logistic regression. Results: We included 495 SRs. One hundred and 62 (32.7%) SRs reported registering the SR protocol or working from a previously established protocol. Thirteen reporting characteristics were described statistically significant in SRs registered versus SRs that were not. Publication bias assessment and Report the number of participants showed the highest effects favoring the register (RR 1.59, CI 95% 1.19-2.12; RR 1.58, CI 95% 1.31-1.92 respectively). Moreover, Registration was not significantly linked with the articles' reporting statistical significance (OR 0.96, CI 95% 0.49-1.90). Conclusion: There is a positive influence of previously registering a protocol in the final report quality of SRs in dentistry. However, we did not observe an association between protocol registration and reduction in outcome reporting bias.

Artificial Intelligence-based Disease Surveillance Amid COVID-19 and Beyond: A Systematic Review Protocol

“…Aiming to avoid unnecessary study duplication [70,71], increase study rigor [72,73], improve study comparability and replicability [74], and ultimately, promote quality and transparency in research [75], the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) procedures will be adhered to in the reporting process [76]. This systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) system (CRD42020204992).…”

Technology-Based Interventions for Nursing Home Residents: Implications for Nursing Home Practice Amid and Beyond the Influence of COVID-19: A Systematic Review Protocol

“…The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) procedures will be adhered to in the reporting process [70]. This systematic review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) system (CRD 42020191880); these measures are to avoid unnecessary study duplication [71,72], increase research rigor [73,74], improve study comparability and replicability [75], and ultimately, promote quality and transparency in research [76]. The review being carried out in line with the Cochrane Handbook [77].…”

Technology-based Health Solutions for Cancer Caregivers to Better Shoulder the Impact of COVID-19: A Systematic Review Protocol

“…Two steps were taken to improve the research rigor [ 32 , 33 ]: (1) a priori registration (CRD42020196301) with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews or PROSPERO managed by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, U.K. and (2) compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) in our research procedures [ 34 ].…”