Nadja Koensgen1, Tanja Rombey2, Katharina Allers3, Tim Mathes1, Falk Hoffmann3, Dawid Pieper1. 1. Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany. 2. Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: tanja.rombey@uni-wh.de. 3. Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, 26111 Oldenburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the prevalence of differences in the reported methods between non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) and their protocols and the extent to which these were reported and explained. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE and Embase to identify protocols of non-Cochrane SRs published in 2012 and 2013. Using various methods, we searched for their corresponding SRs up to December 2016. The SRs and protocols were compared with respect to the methods-related "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols" (PRISMA-P). RESULTS: We included 80 SRs and their protocols. Almost all SRs (92.5%) differed from their protocols in at least one of the methods-related PRISMA-P items (no. 7-17) and their subcategories. Half the SRs (48.8%) had a major difference in at least one item. On average, each SR differed from its protocol in 3.2 items, of which one comprised a major difference. Only 10% of all differences were reported in the SR, two-thirds with an explanation (7.0% in total). CONCLUSION: The reporting quality and transparency of non-Cochrane SRs requires further improvement. Authors should report and explain all important changes made to the protocol in the SR publication. The updated PRISMA statement should include guidance regarding this matter.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the prevalence of differences in the reported methods between non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) and their protocols and the extent to which these were reported and explained. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE and Embase to identify protocols of non-Cochrane SRs published in 2012 and 2013. Using various methods, we searched for their corresponding SRs up to December 2016. The SRs and protocols were compared with respect to the methods-related "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols" (PRISMA-P). RESULTS: We included 80 SRs and their protocols. Almost all SRs (92.5%) differed from their protocols in at least one of the methods-related PRISMA-P items (no. 7-17) and their subcategories. Half the SRs (48.8%) had a major difference in at least one item. On average, each SR differed from its protocol in 3.2 items, of which one comprised a major difference. Only 10% of all differences were reported in the SR, two-thirds with an explanation (7.0% in total). CONCLUSION: The reporting quality and transparency of non-Cochrane SRs requires further improvement. Authors should report and explain all important changes made to the protocol in the SR publication. The updated PRISMA statement should include guidance regarding this matter.
Authors: Simon Schwab; Perrine Janiaud; Michael Dayan; Valentin Amrhein; Radoslaw Panczak; Patricia M Palagi; Lars G Hemkens; Meike Ramon; Nicolas Rothen; Stephen Senn; Eva Furrer; Leonhard Held Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 4.779