Background: Protocols describe the rationale and methodological framework for a subsequent systematic review and must be published before the review. Whilst they usefully describe the need to answer a valid research question, they are time consuming for authors and can take several months or even years to publish. The peer referee and editorial process delay publication further.
Objectives:
1. To assess protocol generation times within the Cochrane Dementia Group.
2. Trial new method/s in protocol production within the context of a large NIHR funded programme grant.
3. Propose other possible models of protocol production.
Methods:
1. We performed a cross-sectional analysis based on data in Archie of our ten most recent intervention protocols to see how long they took from registration to publication.
2. For a suite of 12 reviews on Modifiable Risk Factors we used a generic protocol written in-house with more input than usual from the editorial base – i) consultant methodologist; ii) designated systematic reviewer iii) greater use of our group’s specialist/contact editors; iv) one peer referee.
Results:
1. Times taken from registration to publication varied from 32 to 327 weeks. Mean time: 109 weeks.
2. We will report on time taken from registration to first draft, and to publication. We will report what worked well and what remained a challenge.
Conclusions: Both methodologies are time consuming, but option 2 has potential for reducing registration to publication time.
However a third option might be to publish the protocol as an appendix to the full review. This could incorporate method 2 above, obviating the need for sequential publication. It could considerably reduce time from registration to review publication by reducing the protocol editorial process. Additionally a generic protocol could increase consistency across reviews.