Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 110, Issue , 2019, Pages 34-41

  Koensgen, Nadja ^a   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

Methodology; PRISMA; Protocol; Reporting quality; Systematic review; Transparency

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EMBASE; HUMAN; MEDLINE; PREVALENCE; PUBLICATION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; COMPARATIVE STUDY; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NEEDS ASSESSMENT; QUALITY CONTROL; UNITED STATES;

HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; PUBLICATIONS; QUALITY CONTROL; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85063229848     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.012     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. 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.
2. Mallett, R., Hagen-Zanker, J., Slater, R., Duvendack, M., The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. J Dev Effect 4 (2012), 445–455.
3. Silagy, C.A., Middleton, P., Hopewell, S., Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA 287 (2002), 2831–2834.
4. Allers, K., Hoffmann, F., Mathes, T., Pieper, D., Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search. J Clin Epidemiol 95 (2018), 102–110.
5. Pieper, D., Allers, K., Differences between protocols for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 98 (2018), 144–145.
6. Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Forbes, A., Many scenarios exist for selective inclusion and reporting of results in randomized trials and systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 524–537.
7. Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Tricco, A.C., Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev, 7, 2018, 32.
8. Stewart, L., Moher, D., Shekelle, P., Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev, 1, 2012, 7.
9. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2014 edition. 2014, The Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide.
10. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6, 2009, e1000097.
11. 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.
12. Dwan, K., Kirkham, J.J., Williamson, P.R., Gamble, C., Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis. BMJ Open, 3, 2013, e002709.
13. 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.
14. Parmelli, E.L.A., D'Amico, R., Reporting of outcomes in systematic reviews: comparison of protocols and published systematic reviews. 2007, Evidence-based health care for all Abstracts of the 15th Cochrane Colloquium, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 23–27.
15. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, 2015, i4086.
16. Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., Moher, D., Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev, 1, 2012, 10.
17. Borah, R., Brown, A.W., Capers, P.L., Kaiser, K.A., Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open, 7, 2017, e012545.
18. Chang, S.M., Slutsky, J., Debunking myths of protocol registration. Syst Rev, 1, 2012, 4.
19. 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.
20. PROSPERO. Guidance notes for registering a systematic review protocol with PROSPERO York. 2016, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York.
21. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0, 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration [updated March 2011] Available at www.handbook.cochrane.org. (Accessed 17 January 2019)