Cargando…
PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic review protocols in health and social care, was launched in February 2011. After one year of operation we describe access and use, explore user experience and identify areas for future improvement. METHODS: We collated adminis...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3563608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23320413 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-4 |
_version_ | 1782258224065413120 |
---|---|
author | Booth, Alison Clarke, Mike Dooley, Gordon Ghersi, Davina Moher, David Petticrew, Mark Stewart, Lesley |
author_facet | Booth, Alison Clarke, Mike Dooley, Gordon Ghersi, Davina Moher, David Petticrew, Mark Stewart, Lesley |
author_sort | Booth, Alison |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic review protocols in health and social care, was launched in February 2011. After one year of operation we describe access and use, explore user experience and identify areas for future improvement. METHODS: We collated administrative data and web statistics and conducted an online survey of users’ experiences. RESULTS: On 21 February 2012, there were 1,076 registered users and 359 registration records published on PROSPERO. The database usage statistics demonstrate the international interest in PROSPERO with high access around the clock and around the world. Based on 232 responses from PROSPERO users (response rate 22%), almost all respondents found joining and navigation was easy or very easy (99%); turn round time was good or excellent (96%); and supporting materials provided were helpful or very helpful (80%). The registration fields were found by 80% to be relevant to their review; 99% rated their overall experience of registering with PROSPERO as good or excellent. Most respondents (81%) had a written protocol before completing the registration form and 19% did not. The majority, 136 (79%), indicated they completed the registration form in 60 minutes or less. Of those who expressed an opinion, 167 (87%) considered the time taken to be about right. CONCLUSIONS: The first year of PROSPERO has shown that registration of systematic review protocols is feasible and not overly burdensome for those registering their reviews. The evaluation has demonstrated that, on the whole, survey respondents are satisfied and the system allows registration of protocol details in a straightforward and acceptable way. The findings have prompted some changes to improve user experience and identified some issues for future consideration. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3563608 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35636082013-02-08 PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility Booth, Alison Clarke, Mike Dooley, Gordon Ghersi, Davina Moher, David Petticrew, Mark Stewart, Lesley Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic review protocols in health and social care, was launched in February 2011. After one year of operation we describe access and use, explore user experience and identify areas for future improvement. METHODS: We collated administrative data and web statistics and conducted an online survey of users’ experiences. RESULTS: On 21 February 2012, there were 1,076 registered users and 359 registration records published on PROSPERO. The database usage statistics demonstrate the international interest in PROSPERO with high access around the clock and around the world. Based on 232 responses from PROSPERO users (response rate 22%), almost all respondents found joining and navigation was easy or very easy (99%); turn round time was good or excellent (96%); and supporting materials provided were helpful or very helpful (80%). The registration fields were found by 80% to be relevant to their review; 99% rated their overall experience of registering with PROSPERO as good or excellent. Most respondents (81%) had a written protocol before completing the registration form and 19% did not. The majority, 136 (79%), indicated they completed the registration form in 60 minutes or less. Of those who expressed an opinion, 167 (87%) considered the time taken to be about right. CONCLUSIONS: The first year of PROSPERO has shown that registration of systematic review protocols is feasible and not overly burdensome for those registering their reviews. The evaluation has demonstrated that, on the whole, survey respondents are satisfied and the system allows registration of protocol details in a straightforward and acceptable way. The findings have prompted some changes to improve user experience and identified some issues for future consideration. BioMed Central 2013-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC3563608/ /pubmed/23320413 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-4 Text en Copyright ©2013 Booth et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Booth, Alison Clarke, Mike Dooley, Gordon Ghersi, Davina Moher, David Petticrew, Mark Stewart, Lesley PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility |
title | PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility |
title_full | PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility |
title_fullStr | PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility |
title_full_unstemmed | PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility |
title_short | PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility |
title_sort | prospero at one year: an evaluation of its utility |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3563608/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23320413 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT boothalison prosperoatoneyearanevaluationofitsutility AT clarkemike prosperoatoneyearanevaluationofitsutility AT dooleygordon prosperoatoneyearanevaluationofitsutility AT ghersidavina prosperoatoneyearanevaluationofitsutility AT moherdavid prosperoatoneyearanevaluationofitsutility AT petticrewmark prosperoatoneyearanevaluationofitsutility AT stewartlesley prosperoatoneyearanevaluationofitsutility |