gms | German Medical Science

21. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin e. V.

13. - 15.02.2020, Basel, Schweiz

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

Meeting Abstract

  • Tanja Rombey - Universität Witten/Herdecke, Institut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin, Deutschland
  • Katharina Doni - Universität Witten/Herdecke, Institut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin, Deutschland
  • Falk Hoffmann - Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Oldenburg, Deutschland
  • Dawid Pieper - Universität Witten/Herdecke, Institut für Forschung in der Operativen Medizin, Deutschland
  • Katharina Allers - Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Oldenburg, Deutschland

Nützliche patientenrelevante Forschung. 21. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin. Basel, Schweiz, 13.-15.02.2020. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2020. Doc20ebmPP3-01

doi: 10.3205/20ebm067, urn:nbn:de:0183-20ebm0672

Published: February 12, 2020

© 2020 Rombey et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. See license information at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Outline

Text

Background/research question: Prospective registration of systematic reviews (SRs), e.g. in PROSPERO, the international prospective register for SRs, increases transparency. It may also increase methodological quality, decrease risk of bias, prevent unintended duplication of SRs and facilitate collaboration. Thus, prospective registration is recommended in current guidance on SRs [1], [2].

Our objective was to determine the proportion of SRs registered in PROSPERO and explore differences between publication years, review focus and country. Secondary objectives were a) to compare the characteristics of registered and non-registered SRs, and b) to assess the up-to-dateness of the PROSPERO records’ status.

Methods: We searched PubMed for SRs published between 2011 (launch of PROSPERO) and November 2018. We included a random sample of n = 500 SRs that would be eligible for registration in PROSPERO and extracted data on the following items: Country, focus (therapeutic, epidemiologic, diagnostic, prognostic, other), number of authors, and date of submission, publication and last search. If the SR was registered in PROSPERO, we extracted the record's status (ongoing, completed, published, abandoned, being updated), number of versions, and date of first and last version. All data were analysed 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% in 2018. It did not notably differ depending on the reviews’ focus. SRs from the United States or China were registered less frequently (5.8% and 9.7%, respectively) and SRs from Australia or Canada more frequently (21.4% and 26.8%, respectively). Registered and non-registered 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 of them (49/75; 65.3%) were still listed as “ongoing”.

Conclusion: The proportion of registered SRs differed depending on the country, but, on a whole, more SRs were registered in PROSPERO each year. However, only few records’ status was up-to-date. The up-to-dateness of PROSPERO records must improve, so PROSPERO can be used in an optimal way. Authors of SRs, PROSPERO as well as journals and their editors should play a role in this process.

Competing interests: DP became an associate editor of ‘‘BMC Systematic Reviews’’ in August 2018. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


References

1.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1
2.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015 Jan 2;350:g7647. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7647 External link