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.
Meta-analysis
PROSPERO
Peer review
Protocol
Systematic review
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 03 2019
13 03 2019
Historique:
received:
20
06
2018
accepted:
28
02
2019
entrez:
15
3
2019
pubmed:
15
3
2019
medline:
11
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
An a priori design is essential to reduce the risk of bias in systematic reviews (SRs). To this end, authors can register their SR with PROSPERO, and/or publish a SR protocol in an academic journal. The latter has the advantage that the manuscript for the SR protocol is usually peer-reviewed. However, since authors ought not to begin/continue the SR before their protocol has been accepted for publication, it is crucial that SR protocols are processed in a timely manner. Our main aim was to descriptively analyse the peer review process of SR protocols published in 'BMC Systematic Reviews' from 2012 to 2017. We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed for all SR protocols published in 'BMC Systematic Reviews' between 2012 and 2017, except for protocols for overviews, scoping reviews or realist reviews. Data were extracted from the SR protocols and Open Peer Review reports. For each round of peer review, two researchers judged the extent of revision (minor/major) based on the reviewer reports. Their content was further investigated by two researchers in a random 10%-sample using PRISMA-P as a guideline. All data were analysed descriptively. We identified 544 eligible protocols published in 'BMC Systematic Reviews' between 2012 and 2017. Of those, 485 (89.2%) also registered the SR in PROSPERO, the majority (87.4%) before first submission of the manuscript for the SR protocol (median 49 days). The absolute number of published SR protocols increased from 2012 to 2017 (21 vs 145 protocols), as did the median processing time (61 vs 142 days from submission to acceptance) and the proportion of protocols requiring a major revision after first peer review (19.1% vs 52.4%). Reviewer comments most frequently addressed the PRISMA-P item 'Eligibility criteria'. Overall, 76.0% of the reviewer comments suggested more transparency. The number of published SR protocols increased over the years, but so did the processing time. In 2017, it took several months from submission to acceptance, which is critical from an author's perspective. New models of peer review such as post publication peer review for SR protocols should be investigated. This could probably be realized with PROSPERO.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
An a priori design is essential to reduce the risk of bias in systematic reviews (SRs). To this end, authors can register their SR with PROSPERO, and/or publish a SR protocol in an academic journal. The latter has the advantage that the manuscript for the SR protocol is usually peer-reviewed. However, since authors ought not to begin/continue the SR before their protocol has been accepted for publication, it is crucial that SR protocols are processed in a timely manner. Our main aim was to descriptively analyse the peer review process of SR protocols published in 'BMC Systematic Reviews' from 2012 to 2017.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed for all SR protocols published in 'BMC Systematic Reviews' between 2012 and 2017, except for protocols for overviews, scoping reviews or realist reviews. Data were extracted from the SR protocols and Open Peer Review reports. For each round of peer review, two researchers judged the extent of revision (minor/major) based on the reviewer reports. Their content was further investigated by two researchers in a random 10%-sample using PRISMA-P as a guideline. All data were analysed descriptively.
RESULTS
We identified 544 eligible protocols published in 'BMC Systematic Reviews' between 2012 and 2017. Of those, 485 (89.2%) also registered the SR in PROSPERO, the majority (87.4%) before first submission of the manuscript for the SR protocol (median 49 days). The absolute number of published SR protocols increased from 2012 to 2017 (21 vs 145 protocols), as did the median processing time (61 vs 142 days from submission to acceptance) and the proportion of protocols requiring a major revision after first peer review (19.1% vs 52.4%). Reviewer comments most frequently addressed the PRISMA-P item 'Eligibility criteria'. Overall, 76.0% of the reviewer comments suggested more transparency.
CONCLUSIONS
The number of published SR protocols increased over the years, but so did the processing time. In 2017, it took several months from submission to acceptance, which is critical from an author's perspective. New models of peer review such as post publication peer review for SR protocols should be investigated. This could probably be realized with PROSPERO.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30866832
doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0698-8
pii: 10.1186/s12874-019-0698-8
pmc: PMC6415341
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
57Références
Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 10;1:10
pubmed: 22587960
PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028
pubmed: 27218655
Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 09;1:7
pubmed: 22588008
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 27;7(2):e012545
pubmed: 28242767
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018 Jan 5;3:1
pubmed: 29451557
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jun;98:144-145
pubmed: 29222061
Braz J Phys Ther. 2018 May - Jun;22(3):177-183
pubmed: 29128407
Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 09;1:4
pubmed: 22587945
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Aug;100:103-110
pubmed: 29339215
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Jul;14(7):1-2
pubmed: 27532781
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 10;11(11):e0166387
pubmed: 27832157
BMJ. 2017 Sep 21;358:j4008
pubmed: 28935701
BMC Med. 2014 Sep 26;12:179
pubmed: 25270270
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Mar;95:102-110
pubmed: 29258907
Br J Sports Med. 2019 Aug;53(15):919-921
pubmed: 29021246
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Jun;62(6):617-623.e5
pubmed: 19162440
Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 20;7(1):32
pubmed: 29463298
FASEB J. 2012 Sep;26(9):3589-93
pubmed: 22935905