Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jul 27:9:773.
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.25181.2. eCollection 2020.

An assessment of the extent to which the contents of PROSPERO records meet the systematic review protocol reporting items in PRISMA-P

Alison Booth  1 , Alex S Mitchell  1 , Andrew Mott  1 , Sophie James  1 , Sarah Cockayne  1 , Samantha Gascoyne  1 , Catriona McDaid  1
Affiliations

An assessment of the extent to which the contents of PROSPERO records meet the systematic review protocol reporting items in PRISMA-P

Alison Booth et al. F1000Res. .

Abstract

Background: PROSPERO is an international prospective register for systematic review protocols. Many of the registrations are the only available source of information about planned methods. This study investigated the extent to which records in PROSPERO contained the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Methods: A random sample of 439 single entry PROSPERO records of reviews of health interventions registered in 2018 was identified. Using a piloted list of 19 PRISMA-P items, divided into 63 elements, two researchers independently assessed the registration records. Where the information was present or not applicable to the review, a score of 1 was assigned. Overall scores were calculated and comparisons made by stage of review at registration, whether or not a meta-analysis was planned and whether or not funding/sponsorship was reported. Results: Some key methodological details, such as eligibility criteria, were relatively frequently reported, but much of the information recommended in PRISMA-P was not stated in PROSPERO registrations. Considering the 19 items, the mean score was 4.8 (SD 1.8; median 4; range 2-11) and across all the assessed records only 25% (2081/8227) of the items were scored as reported. Considering the 63 elements, the mean score was 33.4 (SD 5.8; median 33; range 18-47) and overall, 53% (14,469/27,279) of the elements were assessed as reported. Reporting was more frequent for items required in PROSPERO than optional items. The planned comparisons showed no meaningful differences between groups. Conclusions: PROSPERO provides reviewers with the opportunity to be transparent in their planned methods and demonstrate efforts to reduce bias. However, where the PROSPERO record is the only available source of a priori reporting, there is a significant shortfall in the items reported, compared to those recommended. This presents challenges in interpretation for those wishing to assess the validity of the final review.

Keywords: Systematic review; protocol; registration; reporting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: AB led on the development of PROSPERO and is a group author of the PRISMA-P reporting guidelines papers. AB has not been involved in the management of PROSPERO since 2015. SC, SJ, SG, ASM, AM and CM declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Flow chart of record sample identification.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. University of York,2009. Reference Source
    1. Higgins JPT Thomas J Chandler J et al. Editors: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated September 2019). 2nd ed.: Wiley-Blackwell,2019. 10.1002/9781119536604 - DOI
    1. Allers K, Hoffmann F, Mathes T, et al. : Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;95:102–110. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.005 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. : Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647. 10.1136/bmj.g7647 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. : Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources