Sari Khaleel1,2, Brent Cleveland1,2, Arveen Kalapara1,3, Niranjan Sathianathen1,3, Priyamvadha Balaji1, Philipp Dahm4,5. 1. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 2. Urology Section 112D, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA. 3. Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. pdahm@umn.edu. 5. Urology Section 112D, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, One Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN, 55417, USA. pdahm@umn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify urologic systematic reviews (SRs) registered to PROSPERO that resulted in a publication, and to evaluate their methodological quality and concordance with their stated a priori protocols. METHODS: We searched PubMed to identify urologic SR protocols registered in PROSPERO that resulted in a publication and assessed their methodological quality and protocols in relation to their stated a priori protocols in PROSPERO. RESULTS: Of the 576 urologic SR protocols registered in PROSPERO up to December 2017, 201 (34.9%) resulted in a full SR publication, but only 40 (17.7%) updated their registration record accordingly. Publications were spread over 100 different journals, with a median time-to-publication of 29 months (95% CI 25.0-33.0). The most common topic by far was prostate cancer (59.7%), followed by voiding issues (15.3%), and renal transplantation (15.3%). Only little over half the reviews (52.74%) explicitly stated primary outcome(s) that matched the primary outcome of their corresponding PROSPERO protocol. Notable methodologic deviations from registered protocols included planned restriction on study design (33%), heterogeneity analysis (42%) and planned risk of bias analysis (65.2%). CONCLUSION: SR authors in urology are increasingly using PROSPERO to register their titles, but our findings indicate that registration alone is not a guarantor of a high-quality SR product. There appears to be a critical need to raise the bar for review authors registering protocols in PROSPERO, with an emphasis on transparency in their publication status updates as well as deviations from their a priori protocols.
PURPOSE: To identify urologic systematic reviews (SRs) registered to PROSPERO that resulted in a publication, and to evaluate their methodological quality and concordance with their stated a priori protocols. METHODS: We searched PubMed to identify urologic SR protocols registered in PROSPERO that resulted in a publication and assessed their methodological quality and protocols in relation to their stated a priori protocols in PROSPERO. RESULTS: Of the 576 urologic SR protocols registered in PROSPERO up to December 2017, 201 (34.9%) resulted in a full SR publication, but only 40 (17.7%) updated their registration record accordingly. Publications were spread over 100 different journals, with a median time-to-publication of 29 months (95% CI 25.0-33.0). The most common topic by far was prostate cancer (59.7%), followed by voiding issues (15.3%), and renal transplantation (15.3%). Only little over half the reviews (52.74%) explicitly stated primary outcome(s) that matched the primary outcome of their corresponding PROSPERO protocol. Notable methodologic deviations from registered protocols included planned restriction on study design (33%), heterogeneity analysis (42%) and planned risk of bias analysis (65.2%). CONCLUSION: SR authors in urology are increasingly using PROSPERO to register their titles, but our findings indicate that registration alone is not a guarantor of a high-quality SR product. There appears to be a critical need to raise the bar for review authors registering protocols in PROSPERO, with an emphasis on transparency in their publication status updates as well as deviations from their a priori protocols.
Authors: Beverley J Shea; Jeremy M Grimshaw; George A Wells; Maarten Boers; Neil Andersson; Candyce Hamel; Ashley C Porter; Peter Tugwell; David Moher; Lex M Bouter Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Beverley J Shea; Barnaby C Reeves; George Wells; Micere Thuku; Candyce Hamel; Julian Moran; David Moher; Peter Tugwell; Vivian Welch; Elizabeth Kristjansson; David A Henry Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-09-21