Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Protocol development is a fundamental preliminary step in the systematic review process, enabling a priori consideration of review methods and preventing ad hoc decision-making during the review process. When available, protocols can facilitate detection of selective reporting when compared to completed reviews. While protocols are a mandatory component of Cochrane Reviews, most reviews are done outside Cochrane and few report working from protocols. The reporting completeness of systematic review protocols has not previously been examined.
Objectives: This study will assess: the proportion of systematic reviews that have been registered and/or have an available protocol; and for those with a protocol, the epidemiological characteristics and completeness of reporting.
Methods: Three-hundred systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in February 2014, 14% of which are Cochrane Feviews, form the sample from which protocols and registration information will be sought. We will search PROPSERO to determine the number of registered reviews (post-October 2013 only for Cochrane Reviews) and will use a systematic search to identify whether a public protocol exists. For all identified protocols, epidemiological characteristics (e.g. number and country of authors, ICD-10 category) will be extracted and reporting characteristics will be assessed based on items from the PRISMA extension for protocols. Data will be extracted by a single assessor after meeting a minimum threshold of agreement (80%) during independent pilot-testing by two assessors. We will summarise data as proportions for dichotomous items and median and interquartile range for continuous items. We will compare reporting between Cochrane versus non-Cochrane protocols and registered versus non-registered protocols.
Results: Results will be available for presentation at the Colloquium.
Significance: This study will provide data on the prevalence of review registration, availability of review protocols, and the completeness of information reported in SR protocols. This study will be the first of its kind to provide evidence on the strengths and weaknesses of SR protocol reporting.
Objectives: This study will assess: the proportion of systematic reviews that have been registered and/or have an available protocol; and for those with a protocol, the epidemiological characteristics and completeness of reporting.
Methods: Three-hundred systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in February 2014, 14% of which are Cochrane Feviews, form the sample from which protocols and registration information will be sought. We will search PROPSERO to determine the number of registered reviews (post-October 2013 only for Cochrane Reviews) and will use a systematic search to identify whether a public protocol exists. For all identified protocols, epidemiological characteristics (e.g. number and country of authors, ICD-10 category) will be extracted and reporting characteristics will be assessed based on items from the PRISMA extension for protocols. Data will be extracted by a single assessor after meeting a minimum threshold of agreement (80%) during independent pilot-testing by two assessors. We will summarise data as proportions for dichotomous items and median and interquartile range for continuous items. We will compare reporting between Cochrane versus non-Cochrane protocols and registered versus non-registered protocols.
Results: Results will be available for presentation at the Colloquium.
Significance: This study will provide data on the prevalence of review registration, availability of review protocols, and the completeness of information reported in SR protocols. This study will be the first of its kind to provide evidence on the strengths and weaknesses of SR protocol reporting.