ArticleBMJ open2022
Extent and nature of duplication in PROSPERO using COVID-19-related registrations: a retrospective investigation and survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- What evidence syntheses reveal about PROSPERO, INPLASY, OSF, the Research Registry, and protocols.io: a meta-research study.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Pooled it
- Prevalence of soil-transmitted helminth infections in HIV patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Global prevalence and determinants of hospital-acquired COVID-19: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Exploring duplication in reviews of Long COVID: 2020-2023.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Lack of harmonisation in immunological data: challenges in synthesising data during the COVID-19 pandemic.EBioMedicine · 2026Review
- Efficacy of Non-invasive Ventilation Compared to Intubation in Pediatric Acute Respiratory Failure: A Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2026Review
- Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDuring COVID-19, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) experienced a surge in registrations for COVID-19-related systematic reviews, and duplication of research questions became apparent. Duplication can waste funding, time and research effort and make policy making more difficult.This project explored the extent of and reasons for duplication of COVID-19-related systematic review registrations in PROSPERO during the pandemic.
designRetrospective analysis of COVID-19-related registrations in PROSPERO, and a qualitative survey.
settingPROSPERO was searched for registrations related to four COVID-19 research areas: epidemiology, rehabilitation, transmission and treatments.
methodsRecords identified were compared using Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS) elements of PROSPERO registration forms. Registrations with similar or identical PICOS were evaluated further as 'duplicates'.Authors of 'duplicate' registrations were invited to complete a survey asking whether they searched PROSPERO prior to registration, identified similar reviews and, if so, why they continued with their review.
results1054 COVID-19 reviews were registered between March 2020 and January 2021, of which 138 were submitted when at least one similar protocol was already registered in PROSPERO. Duplication was greatest in reviews of COVID-19 treatments; for example, there were 14 similar reviews evaluating the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine.From 138 authors invited to take part in the survey, we received 41 responses. Most respondents said that they identified similar reviews when they searched PROSPERO prior to registration. Main reasons given for 'duplication' were differences in PICOS or planned analyses (n=13), poor quality of previous registrations (n=2) and the need to update evidence (n=3).
conclusionsThis research highlights that registration of similar and duplicate systematic reviews related to COVID-19 in PROSPERO occurred frequently. Awareness of research waste is required, and initial checking for similar reviews should be embedded within good review practice.
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.