Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained
To quantify the prevalence of differences in the reported methods between non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) and their protocols and the extent to which these were reported and explained. We searched MEDLINE and Embase to identify protocols of non-Cochrane SRs published in 2012 and 2013. Using va...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical epidemiology 2019-06, Vol.110, p.34-41 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 41 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 34 |
| container_title | Journal of clinical epidemiology |
| container_volume | 110 |
| creator | Koensgen, Nadja Rombey, Tanja Allers, Katharina Mathes, Tim Hoffmann, Falk Pieper, Dawid |
| description | To quantify the prevalence of differences in the reported methods between non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) and their protocols and the extent to which these were reported and explained.
We searched MEDLINE and Embase to identify protocols of non-Cochrane SRs published in 2012 and 2013. Using various methods, we searched for their corresponding SRs up to December 2016. The SRs and protocols were compared with respect to the methods-related “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols” (PRISMA-P).
We included 80 SRs and their protocols. Almost all SRs (92.5%) differed from their protocols in at least one of the methods-related PRISMA-P items (no. 7–17) and their subcategories. Half the SRs (48.8%) had a major difference in at least one item. On average, each SR differed from its protocol in 3.2 items, of which one comprised a major difference. Only 10% of all differences were reported in the SR, two-thirds with an explanation (7.0% in total).
The reporting quality and transparency of non-Cochrane SRs requires further improvement. Authors should report and explain all important changes made to the protocol in the SR publication. The updated PRISMA statement should include guidance regarding this matter. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.012 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2187523378</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S089543561830903X</els_id><sourcerecordid>2225724248</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-af92cc6874100e52d1201b010a5a3bcbcb17122b6a6e86694254c64766133ffa3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkctu3CAUhlHVqJmmfYUIqZtu7HIx2O6q1ag3KVI26RphONZgYXDBbjIvkOcuo0m66KZiwYLvHP4LQteU1JRQ-WGqJ-NdgMXVjNC-JqwmlL1AO9q1XSV6Rl-iHel6UTVcyEv0OueJENqSVrxCl5x0jAnS7tDjPs6LTi7HgOOIQwzVPppD0gFwPuYVZr06gxP8dnCfsQ4WrwdwCS_b4F0-gMVLims00eeP2LpxhATBQMbRmC2l8j4m-LVBWP0RD9uK7wuAM3gbZwwPi9fFhX2DLkbtM7x9uq_Qz69f7vbfq5vbbz_2n28qw3u5VnrsmTGyaxtKCAhmaTE_EEq00Hww5dCWMjZILaGTsm-YaIxsWikp5-Oo-RV6f95bRBdReVWzywa8L37jlhUr8QnGedsV9N0_6BS3FIo6xUp4LWtYc6LkmTIp5pxgVEtys05HRYk6NaUm9dyUOjWlCFOlqTJ4_bR-G2awf8eeqynApzMAJY-SflLZuFO01iUwq7LR_e-PP2aPqiU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2225724248</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Koensgen, Nadja ; Rombey, Tanja ; Allers, Katharina ; Mathes, Tim ; Hoffmann, Falk ; Pieper, Dawid</creator><creatorcontrib>Koensgen, Nadja ; Rombey, Tanja ; Allers, Katharina ; Mathes, Tim ; Hoffmann, Falk ; Pieper, Dawid</creatorcontrib><description>To quantify the prevalence of differences in the reported methods between non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) and their protocols and the extent to which these were reported and explained.
We searched MEDLINE and Embase to identify protocols of non-Cochrane SRs published in 2012 and 2013. Using various methods, we searched for their corresponding SRs up to December 2016. The SRs and protocols were compared with respect to the methods-related “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols” (PRISMA-P).
We included 80 SRs and their protocols. Almost all SRs (92.5%) differed from their protocols in at least one of the methods-related PRISMA-P items (no. 7–17) and their subcategories. Half the SRs (48.8%) had a major difference in at least one item. On average, each SR differed from its protocol in 3.2 items, of which one comprised a major difference. Only 10% of all differences were reported in the SR, two-thirds with an explanation (7.0% in total).
The reporting quality and transparency of non-Cochrane SRs requires further improvement. Authors should report and explain all important changes made to the protocol in the SR publication. The updated PRISMA statement should include guidance regarding this matter.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.012</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30822507</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Epidemiology ; Humans ; Meta-analysis ; Meta-Analysis as Topic ; Methodology ; Needs Assessment ; PRISMA ; Protocol ; Publishing ; Quality Control ; Reporting quality ; Reviews ; Studies ; Systematic review ; Systematic Reviews as Topic ; Transparency ; United States</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2019-06, Vol.110, p.34-41</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2019. Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-af92cc6874100e52d1201b010a5a3bcbcb17122b6a6e86694254c64766133ffa3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-af92cc6874100e52d1201b010a5a3bcbcb17122b6a6e86694254c64766133ffa3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2225724248?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995,64385,64387,64389,72469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30822507$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Koensgen, Nadja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rombey, Tanja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allers, Katharina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathes, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoffmann, Falk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pieper, Dawid</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>To quantify the prevalence of differences in the reported methods between non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) and their protocols and the extent to which these were reported and explained.
We searched MEDLINE and Embase to identify protocols of non-Cochrane SRs published in 2012 and 2013. Using various methods, we searched for their corresponding SRs up to December 2016. The SRs and protocols were compared with respect to the methods-related “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols” (PRISMA-P).
We included 80 SRs and their protocols. Almost all SRs (92.5%) differed from their protocols in at least one of the methods-related PRISMA-P items (no. 7–17) and their subcategories. Half the SRs (48.8%) had a major difference in at least one item. On average, each SR differed from its protocol in 3.2 items, of which one comprised a major difference. Only 10% of all differences were reported in the SR, two-thirds with an explanation (7.0% in total).
The reporting quality and transparency of non-Cochrane SRs requires further improvement. Authors should report and explain all important changes made to the protocol in the SR publication. The updated PRISMA statement should include guidance regarding this matter.</description><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Meta-Analysis as Topic</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Needs Assessment</subject><subject>PRISMA</subject><subject>Protocol</subject><subject>Publishing</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>Reporting quality</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Systematic Reviews as Topic</subject><subject>Transparency</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkctu3CAUhlHVqJmmfYUIqZtu7HIx2O6q1ag3KVI26RphONZgYXDBbjIvkOcuo0m66KZiwYLvHP4LQteU1JRQ-WGqJ-NdgMXVjNC-JqwmlL1AO9q1XSV6Rl-iHel6UTVcyEv0OueJENqSVrxCl5x0jAnS7tDjPs6LTi7HgOOIQwzVPppD0gFwPuYVZr06gxP8dnCfsQ4WrwdwCS_b4F0-gMVLims00eeP2LpxhATBQMbRmC2l8j4m-LVBWP0RD9uK7wuAM3gbZwwPi9fFhX2DLkbtM7x9uq_Qz69f7vbfq5vbbz_2n28qw3u5VnrsmTGyaxtKCAhmaTE_EEq00Hww5dCWMjZILaGTsm-YaIxsWikp5-Oo-RV6f95bRBdReVWzywa8L37jlhUr8QnGedsV9N0_6BS3FIo6xUp4LWtYc6LkmTIp5pxgVEtys05HRYk6NaUm9dyUOjWlCFOlqTJ4_bR-G2awf8eeqynApzMAJY-SflLZuFO01iUwq7LR_e-PP2aPqiU</recordid><startdate>201906</startdate><enddate>201906</enddate><creator>Koensgen, Nadja</creator><creator>Rombey, Tanja</creator><creator>Allers, Katharina</creator><creator>Mathes, Tim</creator><creator>Hoffmann, Falk</creator><creator>Pieper, Dawid</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201906</creationdate><title>Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained</title><author>Koensgen, Nadja ; Rombey, Tanja ; Allers, Katharina ; Mathes, Tim ; Hoffmann, Falk ; Pieper, Dawid</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-af92cc6874100e52d1201b010a5a3bcbcb17122b6a6e86694254c64766133ffa3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Meta-Analysis as Topic</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Needs Assessment</topic><topic>PRISMA</topic><topic>Protocol</topic><topic>Publishing</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>Reporting quality</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Systematic Reviews as Topic</topic><topic>Transparency</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Koensgen, Nadja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rombey, Tanja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allers, Katharina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mathes, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoffmann, Falk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pieper, Dawid</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Koensgen, Nadja</au><au>Rombey, Tanja</au><au>Allers, Katharina</au><au>Mathes, Tim</au><au>Hoffmann, Falk</au><au>Pieper, Dawid</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2019-06</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>110</volume><spage>34</spage><epage>41</epage><pages>34-41</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>To quantify the prevalence of differences in the reported methods between non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) and their protocols and the extent to which these were reported and explained.
We searched MEDLINE and Embase to identify protocols of non-Cochrane SRs published in 2012 and 2013. Using various methods, we searched for their corresponding SRs up to December 2016. The SRs and protocols were compared with respect to the methods-related “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols” (PRISMA-P).
We included 80 SRs and their protocols. Almost all SRs (92.5%) differed from their protocols in at least one of the methods-related PRISMA-P items (no. 7–17) and their subcategories. Half the SRs (48.8%) had a major difference in at least one item. On average, each SR differed from its protocol in 3.2 items, of which one comprised a major difference. Only 10% of all differences were reported in the SR, two-thirds with an explanation (7.0% in total).
The reporting quality and transparency of non-Cochrane SRs requires further improvement. Authors should report and explain all important changes made to the protocol in the SR publication. The updated PRISMA statement should include guidance regarding this matter.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>30822507</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.012</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0895-4356 |
| ispartof | Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2019-06, Vol.110, p.34-41 |
| issn | 0895-4356 1878-5921 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2187523378 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Epidemiology Humans Meta-analysis Meta-Analysis as Topic Methodology Needs Assessment PRISMA Protocol Publishing Quality Control Reporting quality Reviews Studies Systematic review Systematic Reviews as Topic Transparency United States |
| title | Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T02%3A04%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20non-Cochrane%20systematic%20reviews%20and%20their%20published%20protocols:%20differences%20occurred%20frequently%20but%20were%20seldom%20explained&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Koensgen,%20Nadja&rft.date=2019-06&rft.volume=110&rft.spage=34&rft.epage=41&rft.pages=34-41&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.012&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2225724248%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2225724248&rft_id=info:pmid/30822507&rft_els_id=S089543561830903X&rfr_iscdi=true |