Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

Tools

Ge, Long, Tian, Jin-hui, Li, Ya-nan, Pan, Jia-xue, Li, Ge, Wei, Dang, Xing, Xin, Pan, Bei, Chen, Yao-long, Song, Fu-jian and Yang, Ke-hu (2018) Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 93. pp. 45-55. ISSN 0895-4356

[thumbnail of Accepted manuscript]
Preview
 PDF (Accepted manuscript) - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.
Download (2MB) | Preview

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the differences in main characteristics, reporting and methodological quality between prospectively registered and non-registered systematic reviews. Methods: PubMed was searched to identify systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials published in 2015 in English. After title and abstract screening, potentially relevant reviews were divided into three groups: registered non-Cochrane reviews, Cochrane reviews, and non-registered reviews. For each group, random number tables were generated in Microsoft Excel, and the first 50 eligible studies from each group were randomly selected. Data of interest from systematic reviews were extracted. Regression analyses were conducted to explore the association between total R-AMSTAR or PRISMA scores and the selected characteristics of systematic reviews. Results: The conducting and reporting of literature search in registered reviews were superior to non-registered reviews. Differences in nine of the 11 R-AMSTAR items were statistically significant between registered and non-registered reviews. The total R-AMSTAR score of registered reviews was higher than non-registered reviews (MD=4.82, 95%CI: 3.70, 5.94). Sensitivity analysis by excluding the registration related item presented similar result (MD=4.34, 95%CI: 3.28, 5.40). Total PRISMA scores of registered reviews were significantly higher than non-registered reviews (all reviews: MD=1.47, 95%CI: 0.64-2.30; non-Cochrane reviews: MD=1.49, 95%CI: 0.56-2.42). However, the difference in the total PRISMA score was no longer statistically significant after excluding the item related to registration (item 5). Regression analyses showed similar results. Conclusions: Prospective registration may at least indirectly improve the overall methodological quality of systematic reviews, although its impact on the overall reporting quality was not significant.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: prospective registration,quality,systematic reviews,meta-epidemiological study
Faculty \ School: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School
UEA Research Groups: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Epidemiology and Public Health
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Health Services and Primary Care
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Public Health and Health Services Research (former - to 2023)
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Population Health
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Pure Connector
Date Deposited: 07 Nov 2017 06:05
Last Modified: 25 Sep 2024 13:06
URI: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/65354
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.012

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item