Top

Systematic Reviews

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Commentary

Where to prospectively register a systematic review

Authors: Dawid Pieper, Tanja Rombey

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Background

Prospective registration aims to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of research and to increase transparency. In addition, prospective registration of systematic reviews is argued to help preventing unintended duplication, thereby reducing research waste. PROSPERO was launched in 2011 as the first prospective register for systematic reviews. While it has long been the only option to prospectively register systematic reviews, recently there have been new developments. Our aim was to identify and characterize current options to prospectively register a systematic review to assist review authors in choosing a suitable register.

Methods

To identify systematic review registers, we independently performed internet searches in January 2021 using keywords related to systematic reviews and prospective registration. “Registration” was defined as the process of entering information about a planned systematic review into a database before starting the systematic review process. We collected data on the characteristics of the identified registries and contacted the responsible party of each register for verification of the data related to their registry.

Results

Overall, we identified five options to prospectively register a systematic review: PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry, and INPLASY, which are specific to systematic reviews, and the Open Science Framework Registries and protocols.io, which represent generic registers open to any study type. Detailed information on each register is presented in tables in the main text. Regarding the systematic-review-specific registries, authors have to trade-off between the costs of registration and the processing time of their registration record. All registers provide an option to search for systematic reviews already registered in the register. However, it is unclear how useful these search functions are.

Conclusion

Authors can prospectively register their systematic review in five registries, which come with different characteristics and features. The research community should discuss fair and sustainable financing models for registers that are not operated by for-profit organizations.

World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053.CrossRef

U.S. Congress. PUBLIC LAW 105–115—NOV. 21, Food and Drug Administration Moderization Act of 1997. 1997. Available from: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ115/pdf/PLAW-105publ115.pdf#page=16. Accessed 25 Mar 2021.

European Commission. Regulation (EU) no 536/2014 of the European parliament and of the council. OJEU. 2014;L 158:1–76.

The PLoS Medicine Editors. Best practice in systematic reviews: the importance of protocols and registration. PLOS Med. 2011;8(2):e1001009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001009.CrossRefPubMedCentral

Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):7. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Davies S. The importance of PROSPERO to the National Institute for Health Research. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ. 2010;182(1):13–4. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.081849.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27319. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027319.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rombey T, Doni K, Hoffmann F, Pieper D, Allers K. More systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO each year, but few records’ status was up-to-date. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;117:60–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.026.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Riaz IB, Khan MS, Riaz H, Goldberg RJ. Disorganized systematic reviews and meta-analyses: time to systematize the conduct and publication of these study overviews? Am J Med. 2016;129(3):339.e11–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.10.009.CrossRef

11.

Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability & Rehabilitation Research. About KTDRR’s Registry of Systematic Reviews. 2021. Available from: https://ktdrr.org/systematicregistry/about.html. Accessed 10 Apr 2021.

13.

Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd. KSR Evidence. 2021. Available from: https://www.systematic-reviews.com/ksr-evidence/. Accessed 10 Apr 2021.

14.

Puljak L. Delays in publishing systematic review registrations in PROSPERO are hindering transparency and may lead to research waste. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111474.

15.

Rombey T, Puljak L, Allers K, Ruano J, Pieper D. Inconsistent views among systematic review authors toward publishing protocols as peer-reviewed articles: an international survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.010.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Tawfik GM, Giang HTN, Ghozy S, Altibi AM, Kandil H, Le HH, et al. Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):213. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01094-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Solla F, Bertoncelli CM, Rampal V. Does the PROSPERO registration prevent double review on the same topic? BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020;140. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111361.

18.

Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet. 2011;377(9760):108–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60903-8.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Agha R, Rosin D. The Research Registry – answering the call to register every research study involving human participants. Int J Surg. 2015;16(Pt A):113–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.03.001.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Agha R, Rosin D. The Research Registry - answering the call to register every research study involving human participants. Ann Med Surg. 2015;4(2):95–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2015.03.001.CrossRef

22.

Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. The preregistration revolution. PNAS. 2018;115(11):2600–6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Teytelman L, Stoliartchouk A, Kindler L, Hurwitz BL. Protocols.io: virtual communities for protocol development and discussion. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(8):e1002538. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002538.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Syst Rev. 2013;2:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0699-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Agha R, Fowler AJ, Limb C, Al Omran Y, Sagoo H, Koshy K, et al. The first 500 registrations to the Research Registry(®): advancing registration of under-registered study types. Front Surg. 2016;3:50. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2016.00050.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Fowler AJ, Dowlut N, Limb R, Baldacchino MV, Sonagara V, George N, et al. Analysis of the first 2645 registrations at the research registry(®): a global repository for all study types involving human participants. Int J Surg. 2018;60:231–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.10.036.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Bakker M, Veldkamp CLS, van Assen M, Crompvoets EAV, Ong HH, Nosek BA, et al. Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(12):e3000937. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000937.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Schneider J, Backfisch I, Lachner A. Facilitating Open Science Practices for Research Syntheses: PreregRS Guides Preregistration. Res Syn Meth. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1540.

31.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Systematic review data repository. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021. Available from: https://srdr.ahrq.gov/home/index. Accessed 5 May 2021

32.

Penn Wharton Credibility Lab. AsPredicted. Philadelphia: University of Pennsilvania; 2021. Available from: https://aspredicted.org/. Accessed 5 May 20201

33.

CAMARADES. Welcome to the CAMARADES Preclinical Systematic Review & Meta-analysis Facility (SyRF). 2021. Available from: http://syrf.org.uk/. Accessed 10 Apr 2021.

34.

SYRF Info. Personal communication via email on 18 January 2021. 2021.

35.

Teichgräber U. Systematic review and meta-analysis on DCB vs. POBA in de-novo femoropopliteal disease (DOND). 2020. Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02927574?term=systematic+review&draw=2&rank=10. Accessed 10 Apr 2021.

36.

GlaxoSmithKline. A systematic review of studies of the effect of influenza vaccine against mismatched strains. 2012. Available from: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01416597?term=systematic+review&draw=2&rank=8. Accessed 10 Apr 2021.

37.

Briscoe S, Cooper C, Glanville J, Lefebvre C. The loss of the NHS EED and DARE databases and the effect on evidence synthesis and evaluation. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(3):256–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1235.

Title: Where to prospectively register a systematic review
Authors: Dawid Pieper
Tanja Rombey
Publication date: 01-12-2022
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01877-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Where to prospectively register a systematic review

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Estimating interactions in individual participant data meta-analysis: a comparison of methods in practice

Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes — a scoping review of evidence syntheses

Bursting out of our bubble: using creative techniques to communicate within the systematic review process and beyond

The development and education of a workforce in childhood cancer services in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol

Can serum autoantibodies be a potential early detection biomarker for breast cancer in women? A diagnostic test accuracy review and meta-analysis

Reducing systematic review burden using Deduklick: a novel, automated, reliable, and explainable deduplication algorithm to foster medical research