ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
64 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prevalence of persistent falcine sinus: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of 5,457 subjects.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Prevalence of os odontoideum: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression with implications for vertebral artery and osseous anomalies.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Prevalence and clinical aspects of os trigonum: a meta-analysis.Anatomical science international · 2025Pooled it
- Incidence and predictors of postoperative delirium following remimazolam administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 randomized trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- The efficacy and safety of acupuncture treatment for peripheral facial paralysis: an overview of systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence and characteristics of lumbar ribs: a meta-analysis with anatomical and clinical considerations.Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2024Pooled it
- The prevalence and anatomy of recurrent artery of Heubner: a meta analysis with neurosurgical considerations.Acta neurochirurgica · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing robotic and open partial nephrectomy under the prism of surgical precision: a meta-analysis of the average blood loss rate as a novel variable.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Perinatal prevalence of birth defects in the Mainland of China, 2000-2021: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2024Pooled it
- Differential DNA methylation associated with delayed cerebral ischemia after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review.Neurosurgical review · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Acupuncture treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: an overview of systematic reviews based on evidence mapping.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Social media-based interventions for adults with obesity and overweight: a meta-analysis and meta-regression.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2023Pooled it
- Role of PARP inhibitors beyond BRCA mutation and platinum sensitivity in epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta-analysis of hazard ratios from randomized clinical trials.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Lymphadenectomy in ovarian cancers: a meta-analysis of hazard ratios from randomized clinical trials.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Vitamin D supplementation and total cancer incidence and mortality by daily vs. infrequent large-bolus dosing strategies: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.British journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- The status quo of systematic reviews published in high-impact journals in Korea: a study focused on protocol registration and GRADE use.Epidemiology and health · 2022Pooled it
- Effectiveness of XP-Endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic irrigation on intracanal medicament removal from root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2021Pooled it
- Association Between Prospective Registration and Quality of Systematic Reviews in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-epidemiological Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Provision of Endodontic Treatment in Dentistry amid COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Clinical Recommendations.BioMed research international · 2021Pooled it
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsA 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.
conclusionAbout 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.