Cargando…
The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols
BACKGROUND: With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444273/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36064610 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02053-9 |
_version_ | 1784783181185024000 |
---|---|
author | van der Braak, Kim Ghannad, Mona Orelio, Claudia Heus, Pauline Damen, Johanna A. A. Spijker, René Robinson, Karen Lund, Hans Hooft, Lotty |
author_facet | van der Braak, Kim Ghannad, Mona Orelio, Claudia Heus, Pauline Damen, Johanna A. A. Spijker, René Robinson, Karen Lund, Hans Hooft, Lotty |
author_sort | van der Braak, Kim |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status. METHODS: PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/9kj7r/ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02053-9. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9444273 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94442732022-09-06 The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols van der Braak, Kim Ghannad, Mona Orelio, Claudia Heus, Pauline Damen, Johanna A. A. Spijker, René Robinson, Karen Lund, Hans Hooft, Lotty Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status. METHODS: PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/9kj7r/ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-022-02053-9. BioMed Central 2022-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9444273/ /pubmed/36064610 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02053-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research van der Braak, Kim Ghannad, Mona Orelio, Claudia Heus, Pauline Damen, Johanna A. A. Spijker, René Robinson, Karen Lund, Hans Hooft, Lotty The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols |
title | The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols |
title_full | The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols |
title_fullStr | The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols |
title_full_unstemmed | The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols |
title_short | The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols |
title_sort | score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444273/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36064610 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02053-9 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanderbraakkim thescoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT ghannadmona thescoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT orelioclaudia thescoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT heuspauline thescoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT damenjohannaaa thescoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT spijkerrene thescoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT robinsonkaren thescoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT lundhans thescoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT hooftlotty thescoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT vanderbraakkim scoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT ghannadmona scoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT orelioclaudia scoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT heuspauline scoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT damenjohannaaa scoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT spijkerrene scoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT robinsonkaren scoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT lundhans scoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols AT hooftlotty scoreafter10yearsofregistrationofsystematicreviewprotocols |