A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2019, Pages

  Rombey, Tanja ^a   Allers, Katharina ^b   Mathes, Tim ^a   Hoffmann, Falk ^b   Pieper, Dawid ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OLDENBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Meta analysis; Peer review; PROSPERO; Protocol; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATIONS; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH REPORT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85062885614     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-019-0698-8     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Pieper D, Allers K. Differences between protocols for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017.
2. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.
3. 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(7):1-2.
4. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015:349.
5. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1).
6. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.
7. Writing a Campbell Review [ https://campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/instructions-for-authors.html ].
8. The Joanna Briggs Institute: Joanna Briggs institute reviewers' manual: 2014 edition: the Joanna Briggs institute; 2014.
9. Allers K, Hoffmann F, Mathes T, Pieper D. Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;95:102-10.
10. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):32.
11. Guidance notes for registering a systematic review protocol with PROSPERO [ https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/documents/Registering a review on PROSPERO.pdf].
12. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev. 2012;1:7.
13. Chang SM, Slutsky J. Debunking myths of protocol registration. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):4.
14. Quality and value: the true purpose of peer review [ https://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05032.html ].
15. Vosshall LB. The glacial pace of scientific publishing: why it hurts everyone and what we can do to fix it. FASEB J. 2012;26(9):3589-93.
16. Systematic Reviews: About [ https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/about ].
17. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic reviews. 2012;1:10.
18. Systematic Reviews: Protocol [ https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/submission-guidelines/preparing-your-manuscript/protocol ].
19. Systematic Reviews: Home [ https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/ ].
20. Wallach JD, Egilman AC, Gopal AD, Swami N, Krumholz HM, Ross JS. Biomedical journal speed and efficiency: a cross-sectional pilot survey of author experiences. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018;3(1).
21. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012545.
22. Tricco AC, Pham B, Brehaut J, Tetroe J, Cappelli M, Hopewell S, Lavis JN, Berlin JA, Moher D. An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(6):617-623.e615.
23. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. The global burden of journal peer review in the biomedical literature: strong imbalance in the collective Enterprise. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0166387.
24. Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med. 2014;12(1):179.
25. Guidance notes for registering a systematic review on human studies [ https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#guidancenotes - guidancenotes].
26. Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, 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.
27. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Catala-Lopez F, Li L, Reid EK, Sarkis-Onofre R, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic Reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028.
28. Oliveira CB, Elkins MR, Lemes IR, de Oliveira Silva D, Briani RV, Monteiro HL, Azevedo FM, Pinto RZ. A low proportion of systematic reviews in physical therapy are registered: a survey of 150 published systematic reviews. Braz J Phys Ther. 2017.
29. Andrade R, Pereira R, Weir A, Ardern CL, Espregueira-Mendes J. Zombie reviews taking over the PROSPERO systematic review registry. It's time to fight back! Br J Sports Med. 2017.
30. How to Publish [ https://f1000research.com/for-authors/article-guidelines ].