Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers

Abstract

Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, it is highly recommended that authors publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. our aim was to assess the awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included the authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016, and they were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. An online questionnaire was sent to each participant via e-mail after receiving their approval to join the study. We have sent 6650 emails and received 275 responses.Results: A total of 270 authors responses were complete and included in the final analysis. Our results has shown that PROSPERO was the most common database used for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance time interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and according to their opinion that the other authors lack knowledge of protocol importance and mandance to be registered, was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant percenatge of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants have agreed that protocol registries play a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agree that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants believes that the main reason for not registering protocols, is that the other authors lack knowledge concerning obligation and importance to register the SR/MA protocols in advance. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

Provision of Endodontic Treatment in Dentistry amid COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Clinical Recommendations

“…The articles in the English language were included only, leading to selection bias. Although registering the protocols of the systematic review is not mandated by medical journal editors [47], they are highly recommended and the review protocol of this systematic review is not registered. We used limited databases to search for studies for this review which may lead to exclusion of some studies which are not indexed by these databases.…”

Development of a Systematic Review Protocol and a Scoping Review of Ultrasound-Induced Immune Effects in Peripheral Tumors

“…Using a published and pre-registered protocol to perform the systematic review and meta-analyses minimizes the risk of introducing a methodological bias, as the protocol cannot easily be adapted retrospectively to suit the authors' preference [6]. Therefore, we here present a systematic review protocol to answer the question: does ultrasound alter the immune reaction of peripheral solid tumors in humans and animals compared to control conditions without ultrasound?…”

“…It includes selection criteria for publications, defines outcomes, and describes the specific methodology for data extraction and analysis, as well as the strategies for assessing the quality of the included publications. In addition, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) recommends the registration of protocols for systematic reviews in publicly available databases [6], similar to the mandatory registration of clinical trials in public registries. An additional publication of protocols in peer-reviewed journals is also common [7][8][9][10].…”

Effectiveness of XP-Endo Finisher and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation on Intracanal Medicament Removal From Root Canals: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…Third, only RCTs and CCTs, which are regarded as the highest level of evidence, were included in our quantitative analysis [111]. Moreover, prior protocol registration and subgroup analysis were also the strengths of the current meta-analysis [112,113]. Different root canal area, irrigation protocols, or intracanal medicament periods are potential factors affecting the heterogeneity.…”