Advertisement

More systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO each year, but few records' status was up-to-date

  • Tanja Rombey
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany. Tel.: +49 221 989 5742; fax: +49 221 989 5730.
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany
    Search for articles by this author
  • Katharina Doni
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany
    Search for articles by this author
  • Falk Hoffmann
    Affiliations
    Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
    Search for articles by this author
  • Dawid Pieper
    Affiliations
    Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany
    Search for articles by this author
  • Katharina Allers
    Affiliations
    Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany
    Search for articles by this author

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To determine the proportion of systematic reviews (SRs) registered in PROSPERO and explore differences between publication years, review focus, and country. Secondary objectives were (1) to compare the characteristics of registered and nonregistered SRs and (2) to assess the up-to-dateness of the PROSPERO records' status.

      Study Design and Setting

      In November 2018, we searched PubMed for SRs that were eligible for registration in PROSPERO. We included a random sample of n = 500 SRs. Data were analyzed descriptively.

      Results

      Overall, 76 (15.2%) of the included SRs had been registered in PROSPERO. This proportion has increased with each year, up to 31.6% (36/114) in 2018. It did not notably differ depending on the reviews' focus. SRs from the United States or China were generally registered less frequently and SRs from Australia or Canada more frequently. Registered and nonregistered SRs did not differ regarding the number of authors or the time from submission to publication or from search to submission and publication. We could analyze 75 PROSPERO records, of which 63 (84.0%) were not up-to-date. Most SRs (49/75; 65.3%) were still listed as “ongoing.”

      Conclusion

      More SRs were registered in PROSPERO each year, but only few records' status was up-to-date.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Klugar M.
        A protocol is essential for a systematic review as randomization is for randomized controlled trials.
        JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016; 14: 1-2
        • Stewart L.
        • Moher D.
        • Shekelle P.
        Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense.
        Syst Rev. 2012; 1: 7
      1. Higgins J.P.T. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cumpston M. Li T. Page M.J. Welch V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane, 2009 (Available at)
        www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
        Date accessed: October 24, 2019
      2. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2014 edition. The Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide2014
      3. The Campbell Collaboration.
        policies and guidelines, Campbell systematic reviews2019 (Campbell Policies and Guidelines Series No 1)
        • Booth A.
        • Clarke M.
        • Ghersi D.
        • Moher D.
        • Petticrew M.
        • Stewart L.
        An international registry of systematic-review protocols.
        Lancet. 2011; 377: 108-109
        • Page M.J.
        • Shamseer L.
        • Tricco A.C.
        Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting.
        Syst Rev. 2018; 7: 32
        • PROSPERO
        Guidance notes for registering a systematic review protocol with PROSPERO.
        Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York2016
        • Sideri S.
        • Papageorgiou S.N.
        • Eliades T.
        Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 100: 103-110
        • Moher D.
        • Booth A.
        • Stewart L.
        How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO.
        BJOG. 2014; 121: 784-786
        • Fontelo P.
        • Liu F.
        A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries.
        Syst Rev. 2018; 7: 147
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        PLoS Med. 2009; 6: e1000097
        • Liberati A.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Mulrow C.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • Ioannidis J.P.A.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.
        BMJ. 2009; 339: b2700
        • McInnes M.D.F.
        • Moher D.
        • Thombs B.D.
        • McGrath T.A.
        • Bossuyt P.M.
        • the PRISMA-DTA Group
        • et al.
        Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA Statement.
        JAMA. 2018; 319: 388-396
        • Andrade R.
        • Pereira R.
        • Weir A.
        • Ardern C.L.
        • Espregueira-Mendes J.
        Zombie reviews taking over the PROSPERO systematic review registry. It's time to fight back!.
        Br J Sports Med. 2019; 15: 919-921
        • Runjic E.
        • Rombey T.
        • Pieper D.
        • Puljak L.
        Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 116: 114-121
        • Bracewell-Milnes T.
        • Saso S.
        • Nikolaou D.
        • Norman-Taylor J.
        • Johnson M.
        • Thum M.Y.
        Investigating the effect of an abnormal cervico-vaginal and endometrial microbiome on assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review.
        Am J Reprod Immunol. 2018; 80: e13037
        • Wang C.H.
        • Huang C.H.
        • Chang W.T.
        • Tsai M.S.
        • Liu S.S.
        • Wu C.Y.
        • et al.
        Biphasic versus monophasic defibrillation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Am J Emerg Med. 2013; 31: 1472-1478
        • Booth A.
        • Clarke M.
        • Dooley G.
        • Ghersi D.
        • Moher D.
        • Petticrew M.
        • et al.
        PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility.
        Syst Rev. 2013; 2: 4
        • Sideri S.
        • Papageorgiou S.N.
        • Eliades T.
        Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO?.
        J Orthod. 2017; 44: 249-255
      4. World Medical Association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.
        JAMA. 2013; 310: 2191-2194
        • De Angelis C.
        • Drazen J.M.
        • Frizelle F.A.
        • Haug C.
        • Hoey J.
        • Horton R.
        • et al.
        Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
        Lancet. 2004; 364: 911-912
      5. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110–85, 121 Stat. 904-22.
        U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, D.C2007 (Available at)
        • Trinquart L.
        • Dunn A.G.
        • Bourgeois F.T.
        Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        BMC Med. 2018; 16: 173
        • Jones C.W.
        • Safferman M.R.
        • Adams A.C.
        • Platts-Mills T.F.
        Discrepancies between ClinicalTrials.gov recruitment status and actual trial status: a cross-sectional analysis.
        BMJ Open. 2017; 7: e017719
        • ClinicalTrials.gov
        Glossary of common site terms.
        (Available at)
        • Viguera-Guerra I.
        • Ruano J.
        • Aguilar-Luque M.
        • Gay-Mimbrera J.
        • Montilla A.
        • Fernández-Rueda J.L.
        • et al.
        Evolution of international collaborative research efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews.
        PLoS One. 2019; 14: e0211919
      6. Systematic reviews. Protocol.
        (Available at)
        • Schiavo J.H.
        PROSPERO: an international register of systematic review protocols.
        Med Ref Serv Q. 2019; 38: 171-180
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Cogo E.
        • Page M.J.
        • Polisena J.
        • Booth A.
        • Dwan K.
        • et al.
        A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 79: 46-54