Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers.
Duplication
Idea theft
Meta-analysis
PROSPERO
Registration
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:
25 08 2020
25 08 2020
Historique:
received:
21
03
2020
accepted:
03
08
2020
entrez:
27
8
2020
pubmed:
28
8
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, it is highly recommended that authors publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. our aim was to assess the awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. A cross-sectional survey study included the authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016, and they were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. An online questionnaire was sent to each participant via e-mail after receiving their approval to join the study. We have sent 6650 emails and received 275 responses. A total of 270 authors responses were complete and included in the final analysis. Our results has shown that PROSPERO was the most common database used for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance time interval in PROSPERO was less than 1 month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and according to their opinion that the other authors lack knowledge of protocol importance and mandance to be registered, was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant percenatge of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants have agreed that protocol registries play a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agree that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. About half of the participants believes that the main reason for not registering protocols, is that the other authors lack knowledge concerning obligation and importance to register the SR/MA protocols in advance. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, it is highly recommended that authors publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. our aim was to assess the awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process.
METHODS
A cross-sectional survey study included the authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016, and they were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. An online questionnaire was sent to each participant via e-mail after receiving their approval to join the study. We have sent 6650 emails and received 275 responses.
RESULTS
A total of 270 authors responses were complete and included in the final analysis. Our results has shown that PROSPERO was the most common database used for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance time interval in PROSPERO was less than 1 month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and according to their opinion that the other authors lack knowledge of protocol importance and mandance to be registered, was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant percenatge of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants have agreed that protocol registries play a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agree that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory.
CONCLUSION
About half of the participants believes that the main reason for not registering protocols, is that the other authors lack knowledge concerning obligation and importance to register the SR/MA protocols in advance. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32842968
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01094-9
pii: 10.1186/s12874-020-01094-9
pmc: PMC7448304
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
213Références
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Oct 29;6(4):e39
pubmed: 15631963
Springerplus. 2014 Apr 09;3:182
pubmed: 24808996
BMJ. 2013 Aug 14;347:f5040
pubmed: 23945367
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Dec 1;46(6):1999-2008
pubmed: 29040566
PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028
pubmed: 27218655
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jan;93:45-55
pubmed: 29111471
BMC Res Notes. 2017 Dec 6;10(1):703
pubmed: 29208054
Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 11;2:111
pubmed: 24330739
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Jun;62(6):617-623.e5
pubmed: 19162440
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jan 11;18(1):9
pubmed: 29325533
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Apr;84:54-60
pubmed: 28242481
Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 09;1:4
pubmed: 22587945
Pediatrics. 2003 Apr;111(4 Pt 1):e299-303
pubmed: 12671142
J Urol. 2000 Jun;163(6):1779-82
pubmed: 10799181
Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 27;7(1):147
pubmed: 30261915
Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 20;7(1):32
pubmed: 29463298
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):491-501
pubmed: 19540721
BJOG. 2012 Jul;119(8):903-5
pubmed: 22703418
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Nov;115:25-34
pubmed: 31276781
Syst Rev. 2018 Mar 9;7(1):43
pubmed: 29523200
BMJ. 2013 Jul 19;347:f4501
pubmed: 23873947
Lancet. 2011 Jan 8;377(9760):108-9
pubmed: 20630580
CMAJ. 2010 Jan 12;182(1):13-4
pubmed: 19620270
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008 Jun;32(3):288-9
pubmed: 18578832
PLoS Med. 2010 Sep 21;7(9):e1000326
pubmed: 20877712
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 11;19(1):78
pubmed: 30975073
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Mar 18;10:23
pubmed: 20298582
Gerontologist. 2001 Dec;41(6):799-804
pubmed: 11723348
Gerodontology. 2019 Dec;36(4):301-302
pubmed: 31713909
Syst Rev. 2013 Jan 15;2:4
pubmed: 23320413
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34
pubmed: 15471760
Med Hypotheses. 2015 Oct;85(4):488-90
pubmed: 26194725
BMJ. 2013 Oct 02;347:f5870
pubmed: 24088555
Int J Qual Health Care. 1998 Aug;10(4):311-7
pubmed: 9835247
Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Jun;15(3):261-6
pubmed: 12803354
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 May;97:1-13
pubmed: 29175415