Article type
Abstract
"Background: Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a non-invasive treatment that can be used as a complementary therapeutic in numerous clinical practices, such as dermatological conditions, oncology, musculoskeletal disorders, and different areas of dentistry. A growing number of systematic reviews have been published on the effects of this intervention, and many of them do not present a registered protocol, which makes it difficult to check the reliability of the information provided.
Objectives: To map systematic reviews on PBM for treating different health conditions and verify if the protocol was registered, if the review status was updated in the PROSPERO platform, and if clinical redundancy was present in these systematic reviews.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE and Epistemonikos databases on August 01, 2023, to identify systematic reviews evaluating PBM's therapeutic effects in any healthcare area. Outcomes included the presence of systematic review protocols registered on PROSPERO or other platforms, adequacy of methodological planning identified in the protocol, registration status on PROSPERO, and degree of redundancy among included reviews. Data analysis was summarized with descriptive statistics.
Results: Of the 248 systematic reviews included, 68% did not record their protocols, even when they reported that they followed the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Despite these systematic reviews being completed and published, 68% are still reported in the PROSPERO as a ""review in progress"" and 5.1% as a ""review completed but not published."" Additionally, 4.1% of them presented changes from protocol to review mainly related to adding search databases and unplanned outcomes, indicating a marginal rate of reporting bias.
Conclusions: Based on the findings of this meta-research study, a small percentage of systematic review protocols on PBM in various health areas were registered and made available, as recommended by the PRISMA statement. The adherence of systematic reviews to the registration of protocols is essential to ensure transparency and methodological rigor in the research process.
Relevance and importance to patients: These findings can motivate systematic review authors to register their protocols prospectively and editors to implement this step as mandatory in the paper submission process to improve the reliability and applicability of the results.
"
Objectives: To map systematic reviews on PBM for treating different health conditions and verify if the protocol was registered, if the review status was updated in the PROSPERO platform, and if clinical redundancy was present in these systematic reviews.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE and Epistemonikos databases on August 01, 2023, to identify systematic reviews evaluating PBM's therapeutic effects in any healthcare area. Outcomes included the presence of systematic review protocols registered on PROSPERO or other platforms, adequacy of methodological planning identified in the protocol, registration status on PROSPERO, and degree of redundancy among included reviews. Data analysis was summarized with descriptive statistics.
Results: Of the 248 systematic reviews included, 68% did not record their protocols, even when they reported that they followed the recommendations of the PRISMA statement. Despite these systematic reviews being completed and published, 68% are still reported in the PROSPERO as a ""review in progress"" and 5.1% as a ""review completed but not published."" Additionally, 4.1% of them presented changes from protocol to review mainly related to adding search databases and unplanned outcomes, indicating a marginal rate of reporting bias.
Conclusions: Based on the findings of this meta-research study, a small percentage of systematic review protocols on PBM in various health areas were registered and made available, as recommended by the PRISMA statement. The adherence of systematic reviews to the registration of protocols is essential to ensure transparency and methodological rigor in the research process.
Relevance and importance to patients: These findings can motivate systematic review authors to register their protocols prospectively and editors to implement this step as mandatory in the paper submission process to improve the reliability and applicability of the results.
"