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, authors are strongly suggested to publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. We aimed to assess awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included all authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016 were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. Upon receiving their approval to join our study, an online questionnaire was sent via e-mail to each participant. We received 275 responses from 6650 successfully sent emails. Results: A total of 270 authors' responses were complete and were included in the final analysis. Our results showed that PROSPERO was the most commonly used database for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance 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 their opinion that lack of knowledge of its importance and mandance to be registered was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant proportion 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 agreed that protocol registries have a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agreed that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants seemed that the primary reason for not registering such protocols, that was not knowing that protocols must or should be mandatory. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

Quality of systematic reviews with meta‐analyses of resveratrol: A methodological systematic review

“…It is generally acknowledged that all decision‐making should be made upon bias‐free evidence. Therefore, the tool requiring an MA should have a prior protocol and register it on public websites (e.g., PROSPERO), as a preregistered protocol can inform the process of conducting an MA, reduce duplicate efforts, and help identify selective reporting bias (Page et al, 2014; Tawfik et al, 2020). An empirical study (Zheng et al, 2021) revealed that the prospective registration of protocols was positively associated with methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews on type 2 diabetes mellitus.…”

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 [109]. Moreover, prior protocol registration and subgroup analysis were also the strengths of the current meta-analysis [110,111]. Different root canal area, irrigation protocols, or intracanal medicament periods are potential factors affecting the heterogeneity.…”

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.…”