+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study



Majority of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals neglected to register the protocols: a meta-epidemiological study



Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 84: 54-60



To describe the registration of systematic review (SR) protocols and examine whether or not registration reduced the outcome reporting bias in high-impact journals. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed to identify SRs of randomized controlled trials of interventions. We included SRs published between August 2009 and June 2015 in the 10 general and internal medicinal journals with the highest impact factors in 2013. We examined the proportion of SR protocol registration and investigated the relationship between registration and outcome reporting bias using multivariable logistic regression. Among the 284 included reviews, 60 (21%) protocols were registered. The proportion of registration increased from 5.6% in 2009 to 27% in 2015 (P for trend <0.001). Protocol registration was not associated with outcome reporting bias (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-1.86). The association between Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) adherence and protocol registration was not statistically significant (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.59-2.01). Six years after the launch of the PRISMA statement, the proportion of protocol registration in high-impact journals has increased some but remains low. The present study found no evidence suggesting that protocol registration reduced outcome reporting bias.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 059937827

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 28242481

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.02.008


Related references

Risk of bias and methodological appraisal practices in systematic reviews published in anaesthetic journals: a meta-epidemiological study. Anaesthesia 71(8): 955-968, 2016

Is quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in high impact radiology journals associated with citation rates?. Plos One 10(3): E0119892-E0119892, 2016

A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer. Bmj Open 8(3): E020869-E020869, 2018

Publication bias is underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals: metaepidemiologic study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67(12): 1320-1326, 2015

Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study. Plos One 11(9): E0163309-E0163309, 2016

The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing 23(3-4): 315-332, 2015

Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 280(3): 278-280, 1998

Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study. Bmj Open 7(2): E013905-E013905, 2017

Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals. Anesthesia and Analgesia 123(4): 1018-1025, 2017

A Critical Review of Search Strategies Used in Recent Systematic Reviews Published in Selected Prosthodontic and Implant-Related Journals: Are Systematic Reviews Actually Systematic?. International Journal of Prosthodontics 30(1): 13-21, 2017

Clinical trial registry use in anaesthesiology systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals and the Cochrane Library. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 34(12): 797-807, 2017

Epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of nursing interventions published in Chinese journals. Nursing Outlook 63(4): 446-455.E4, 2016

Quality appraisal of systematic reviews or meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine published in Chinese journals. Zhongguo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi Zhongguo Zhongxiyi Jiehe Zazhi 27(4): 306-311, 2007

A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Evaluation & the Health Professions 25(1): 116-129, 2002

Is the information of systematic reviews published in nursing journals up-to-date? a cross-sectional study. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 17(1): 151-151, 2017