Tanja Rombey1, Katharina Doni2, Falk Hoffmann3, Dawid Pieper2, Katharina Allers3. 1. Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany. Electronic address: tanja.rombey@uni-wh.de. 2. Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany. 3. Department of Health Services Research, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of systematic reviews (SRs) registered in PROSPERO and explore differences between publication years, review focus, and country. Secondary objectives were (1) to compare the characteristics of registered and nonregistered SRs and (2) to assess the up-to-dateness of the PROSPERO records' status. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In November 2018, we searched PubMed for SRs that were eligible for registration in PROSPERO. We included a random sample of n = 500 SRs. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Overall, 76 (15.2%) of the included SRs had been registered in PROSPERO. This proportion has increased with each year, up to 31.6% (36/114) in 2018. It did not notably differ depending on the reviews' focus. SRs from the United States or China were generally registered less frequently and SRs from Australia or Canada more frequently. Registered and nonregistered SRs did not differ regarding the number of authors or the time from submission to publication or from search to submission and publication. We could analyze 75 PROSPERO records, of which 63 (84.0%) were not up-to-date. Most SRs (49/75; 65.3%) were still listed as "ongoing." CONCLUSION: More SRs were registered in PROSPERO each year, but only few records' status was up-to-date.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of systematic reviews (SRs) registered in PROSPERO and explore differences between publication years, review focus, and country. Secondary objectives were (1) to compare the characteristics of registered and nonregistered SRs and (2) to assess the up-to-dateness of the PROSPERO records' status. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In November 2018, we searched PubMed for SRs that were eligible for registration in PROSPERO. We included a random sample of n = 500 SRs. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Overall, 76 (15.2%) of the included SRs had been registered in PROSPERO. This proportion has increased with each year, up to 31.6% (36/114) in 2018. It did not notably differ depending on the reviews' focus. SRs from the United States or China were generally registered less frequently and SRs from Australia or Canada more frequently. Registered and nonregistered SRs did not differ regarding the number of authors or the time from submission to publication or from search to submission and publication. We could analyze 75 PROSPERO records, of which 63 (84.0%) were not up-to-date. Most SRs (49/75; 65.3%) were still listed as "ongoing." CONCLUSION: More SRs were registered in PROSPERO each year, but only few records' status was up-to-date.
Authors: Kim van der Braak; Mona Ghannad; Claudia Orelio; Pauline Heus; Johanna A A Damen; René Spijker; Karen Robinson; Hans Lund; Lotty Hooft Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2022-09-05
Authors: Jérémie F Cohen; Jonathan J Deeks; Lotty Hooft; Jean-Paul Salameh; Daniël A Korevaar; Constantine Gatsonis; Sally Hopewell; Harriet A Hunt; Chris J Hyde; Mariska M Leeflang; Petra Macaskill; Trevor A McGrath; David Moher; Johannes B Reitsma; Anne W S Rutjes; Yemisi Takwoingi; Marcello Tonelli; Penny Whiting; Brian H Willis; Brett Thombs; Patrick M Bossuyt; Matthew D F McInnes Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-03-15