Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 100, Issue , 2018, Pages 103-110

  Sideri, Sofia ^a   Papageorgiou, Spyridon N ^b   Eliades, Theodore ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Evidence based dentistry; Meta analysis; Orthodontics; Quality; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

COMPARATIVE STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGIST; EVIDENCE BASED DENTISTRY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; NULL HYPOTHESIS; ORTHODONTICS; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; REGISTRATION; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; METHODOLOGY; REGISTER;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; ORTHODONTICS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REGISTRIES; RESEARCH DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85042585933     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.003     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Patsopoulos, N.A., Analatos, A.A., Ioannidis, J.P., Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA 293 (2005), 2362–2366.
2. Chavalarias, D., Ioannidis, J.P., Science mapping analysis characterizes 235 biases in biomedical research. J Clin Epidemiol 63 (2010), 1205–1215.
3. Dwan, K., Altman, D.G., Arnaiz, J.A., Bloom, J., Chan, A.W., Cronin, E., et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS One, 3, 2008, e3081.
4. Chan, A.W., Hrobjartsson, A., Haahr, M.T., Gotzsche, P.C., Altman, D.G., Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291 (2004), 2457–2465.
5. Mathieu, S., Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D.G., Ravaud, P., Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 302 (2009), 977–984.
6. Kirkham, J.J., Altman, D.G., Williamson, P.R., Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One, 5, 2010, e9810.
7. Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Kirkham, J., Dwan, K., Kramer, S., Green, S., et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014, MR000035.
8. Pandis, N., Fleming, P.S., Worthington, H., Dwan, K., Salanti, G., Discrepancies in outcome reporting exist between protocols and published oral health Cochrane systematic reviews. PLoS One, 10(9), 2015, e0137667.
9. 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 79 (2016), 46–54.
10. Siontis, K.C., Hernandez-Boussard, T., Ioannidis, J.P., Overlapping metaanalyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ, 347, 2013, f4501.
11. Booth, A., Clarke, M., Dooley, G., Ghersi, D., Moher, D., Petticrew, M., et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 1, 2012, 2.
12. Moher, D., The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. BMJ, 347, 2013, f5040.
13. Moher, D., Booth, A., Stewart, L., How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO. BJOG 121 (2014), 784–786.
14. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), e1–e34.
15. Tsujimoto, Y., Tsujimoto, H., Kataoka, Y., Kimachi, M., Shimizu, S., Ikenoue, T., et al. Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 84 (2017), 54–60.
16. Papageorgiou, S.N., Papadopoulos, M.A., Athanasiou, A.E., Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Orthod Craniofac Res 14 (2011), 116–137.
17. Papageorgiou, S.N., Papadopoulos, M.A., Athanasiou, A.E., Reporting characteristics of meta-analyses in orthodontics: methodological assessment and statistical recommendations. Eur J Orthod 36 (2014), 74–85.
18. Shea, B.J., Grimshaw, J.M., Wells, G.A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 7, 2007, 10.
19. Sideri, S., Papageorgiou, S.N., Eliades, T., Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO?. J Orthod 44 (2017), 249–255.
20. Maldonado, G., Greenland, S., Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. Am J Epidemiol 138 (1993), 923–936.
21. Ioannidis, J.P., Greenland, S., Hlatky, M.A., Khoury, M.J., Macleod, M.R., Moher, D., et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 383 (2014), 166–175.
22. Ioannidis, J.P., The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q 94 (2016), 485–514.
23. Delgado-Rodriguez, M., Ruiz-Canela, M., De Irala-Estevez, J., Llorca, J., Martinez-Gonzalez, A., Participation of epidemiologists and/or biostatisticians and methodological quality of published controlled clinical trials. J Epidemiol Community Health 55 (2001), 569–572.
24. Fleming, P.S., Koletsi, D., Seehra, J., Pandis, N., Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 754–759.
25. Altman, D.G., Goodman, S.N., Schroter, S., How statistical expertise is used in medical research. JAMA 287 (2002), 2817–2820.
26. Perneger, T.V., Ricou, B., Boulvain, M., Bovier, P.A., Herrmann, F.R., Perrier, A., et al. Medical researchers evaluate their methodological skills. J Clin Epidemiol 57 (2004), 1323–1329.
27. Polychronopoulou, A., Eliades, T., Taoufik, K., Papadopoulos, M.A., Athanasiou, A.E., Knowledge of European orthodontic postgraduate students on biostatistics. Eur J Orthod 33 (2011), 434–440.
28. Pandis, N., Shamseer, L., Kokich, V.G., Fleming, P.S., Moher, D., Active implementation strategy of CONSORT adherence by a dental specialty journal improved randomized clinical trial reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 1044–1048.
29. Sarkis-Onofre, R., Cenci, M.S., Demarco, F.F., Lynch, C.D., Fleming, P.S., Pereira-Cenci, T., et al. Use of guidelines to improve the quality and transparency of reporting oral health research. J Dent 43 (2015), 397–404.
30. Papageorgiou, S.N., Xavier, G.M., Cobourne, M.T., Basic study design influences the results of orthodontic clinical investigations. J Clin Epidemiol 68 (2015), 1512–1522.
31. Whiting, P., Savović J., Higgins, J.P., Caldwell, D.M., Reeves, B.C., Shea, B., et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 69 (2016), 225–234.
32. Shea, B.J., Bouter, L.M., Peterson, J., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Ortiz, Z., et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One, 2(12), 2007, e1350.
33. Shea, B.J., Hamel, C., Wells, G.A., Bouter, L.M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 1013–1020.
34. Shea, B.J., Reeves, B.C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 358, 2017, j4008.