ArticleSystematic reviews2022
The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 6 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in behaviour analysis journals: An umbrella review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- The Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Depressive Symptoms and Their Relationship to Interoceptive Awareness: A Systematic Review.Alpha psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical performance of short implants vs. standard implants in edentulous patients. An umbrella review.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Pooled it
- Microbiota Transplantation as an Adjunct to Standard Periodontal Treatment in Periodontal Disease: A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Pooled it
- Acupuncture treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: an overview of systematic reviews based on evidence mapping.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- The role of systemic statins in the inception and healing of apical periodontitis: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- How should retrospectively registered protocols be interpreted in systematic reviews?Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Adhesively Bonded Steel-Concrete Composite Structures: A Systematic Literature Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Methodological Quality of Umbrella Reviews in Paediatric Dentistry: A Cross-Sectional Study.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Bibliometric, methodological and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews with explicit AI disclosure statements: an exploratory meta-research study.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Where did I leave my systematic review protocol, and what should it contain regarding Trial Sequential Analysis?BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Review
- Meta-Analyses under the Microscope: Strengthening Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses in Andrology through Methodological Rigor.The world journal of men's health · 2025Article
- Open science interventions to improve reproducibility and replicability of research: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Reliability and reproducibility of systematic reviews informing the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a pilot study.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Article
- Evidence-based research.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews led by Peruvian authors: A scoping review.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Dietary interventions in autism: a critical appraisal and commentary on the findings of a systematic review.British journal of neuroscience nursing · 2024Article
- Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research.Pediatric research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status.
methodsPubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%).
conclusionsWe found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/9kj7r/.
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.