Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 116, Issue , 2019, Pages 114-121

  Runjic, Edita ^a   Rombey, Tanja ^b   Pieper, Dawid ^b   Puljak, Livia ^c  

^a Dubrovnik General Hospital   (Croatia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

^c Croatian Academy of Medical Sciences Zagreb   (Croatia)

Author keywords

Methodology; PROSPERO; Review process; Review protocol; Review registration; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANESTHESIOLOGY; ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PAIN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; REFERENCE DATABASE; REGISTER; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

HUMANS; PAIN; PUBLICATIONS; REGISTRIES; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85072851985     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.08.010     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews n.d. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.
2. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev 2012;1:7-10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-7.
3. 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. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-4.
4. Guidance notes for registering a systematic review protocol with PROSPERO 2016. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/documents/Registering a review on PROSPERO.pdf (accessed April 21, 2019).
5. Tricco AC, Cogo E, Page MJ, 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. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.025.
6. 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:e012545. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545.
7. Tricco AC, Pham B, Brehaut J, Tetroe J, Cappelli M, Hopewell S, et al. An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:617-623.e5. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.014.
8. Tricco AC, Brehaut J, Chen MH, Moher D. Following 411 Cochrane protocols to completion: A retrospective cohort study. PLoS One 2008;3:e3684. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003684.
9. Runjic E, Behmen D, Pieper D, Mathes T, Tricco AC, Moher D, et al. Following Cochrane review protocols to completion ten years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2019. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.006.
10. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD. Multidisciplinary Bibliographic Databases. J Korean Med Sci 2013;28:1270. doi:10.3346/jkms.2013.28.9.1270.
11. Tsujimoto H, Tsujimoto Y, Kataoka Y. Unpublished systematic reviews and financial support: A meta-epidemiological study. BMC Res Notes 2017;10:1-5. doi:10.1186/s13104-017-3043-5.
12. 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;0:bjsports-2017-098252. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-098252.
13. Moher D, Booth A, Stewart L. How to reduce unnecessary duplication: Use PROSPERO. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;121:784-786. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12657.
14. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
15. 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. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
16. ICMJE Recommendations Clinical Trials 2019. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html (accessed April 21, 2019).
17. 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 2017;84:54-60. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.008.
18. Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Are orthodontic systematic reviews registered a priori in PROSPERO? J Orthod 2017;44:249-255. doi:10.1080/14653125.2017.1370773.
19. Rombey T, Allers K, Mathes T, Hoffmann F, Pieper D. 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 Med Res Methodol 2019;19:1-9. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0698-8.
20. 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;100:103-110. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.01.003.
21. 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;95:102-110. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.005.
22. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev 2018;7:1-9. doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0699-4.
23. Ruano J, Gomez-Garcia F, Gay-Mimbrera J, Aguilar-Luque M, Fernandez-Rueda JL, Fernandez-Chaichio J, et al. Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol. Syst Rev 2018;7:43. doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0709-6.