ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2026
Deviations between registered protocols and published systematic reviews in high-impact anesthesiology and pain medicine journals: a cross-sectional analysis.
Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeProtocol registration is essential for preventing selective reporting bias in systematic reviews, yet deviations from registered protocols remain common across medical fields. We sought to evaluate the prevalence of protocol registration and assessed concordance between registered protocols and published systematic reviews in high-impact anesthesiology journals, hypothesizing that undeclared deviations would be prevalent.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews published in 2025 in first-quartile anesthesiology journals according to Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate, London, UK). We searched PubMed® in July 2025 to identify eligible studies. Two reviewers independently assessed concordance between registered protocols and published reviews using a standardized 22-item extraction form covering eligibility criteria; the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design (PICOS) framework; search methods; risk assessment tools; and planned analyses. We recorded agreement as binary outcome, with explicit acknowledgement of deviations noted.
resultsOf 172 identified systematic reviews, we included 114 after excluding nonregistered studies and those with post hoc registration. All 114 (100%) reviews reported at least one protocol deviation, but only 18 (16%) provided justifications. The most frequent deviation was authorship change (74%), resulting in 317 additional authors without acknowledgement. PICOS framework variations occurred in 65% of reviews, with primary outcome changes in 15% (disclosed in only two cases). Search strategy deviations occurred in 28% of studies, and 38% added Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments without prior registration.
conclusionsOur study identified at least one deviation from the registered protocol in all of the 114 included systematic reviews published in high-impact anesthesiology journals. Universal protocol deviations with minimal disclosure threaten the integrity of systematic reviews in anesthesiology and pain medicine. These findings show an urgent need for stricter protocol adherence and transparent reporting of deviations by authors, with enhanced oversight by peer reviewers and journal editors. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/ksezg ); first submitted 10 July 2025.
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.