Adherence to the PRISMA-P 2015 reporting guideline was inadequate in systematic review protocols

Anders Dreyer Frost · Asbjørn Hróbjartsson · Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard

36 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Publishing and Open Access Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to investigate to which degree systematic review protocols adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) reporting guideline. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We randomly sampled 50 publications of systematic review protocols indexed in PubMed and 50 protocols uploaded to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) from 2016 onward. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed adherence to the 26 items specified by PRISMA-P. For each protocol, we categorized adherence to PRISMA-P as complete (≥90% of PRISMA-P items were fully reported) or partial (≥60% of PRISMA-P items were fully reported). We also assessed adherence to each PRISMA-P item across the protocols. RESULTS: Four (8%) of the PubMed-indexed protocols adhered completely and 45 (90%) adhered partially to PRISMA-P but with considerable variation. None (0%) of the PROSPERO-uploaded protocols adhered completely and only 6 (12%) adhered partially to PRISMA-P. For both types of protocols, aspects related to the role of the sponsor, procedures for doing qualitative data synthesis if quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, and methods for assessing publication or outcome reporting biases and confidence in cumulative evidence were often not reported. CONCLUSION: Adherence to the PRISMA-P reporting guideline was somewhat inadequate in PubMed-indexed protocols and clearly inadequate in PROSPERO-uploaded protocols. Authors of systematic review protocols who decide to report according to PRISMA-P should carefully check all items included in the guideline, and journal editors and peer reviewers should consider PRISMA-P adherence when reviewing protocols for potential publication.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 36 citations exist upstream.

References

2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement 2015Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation 2013SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials 2013SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials 2020JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis 2021Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement 2012The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews

Cited by

2023Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatment interventions for Internet use disorders: Critical analysis of the methodical quality according to the PRISMA guidelines 2023Theory of planned behavior in creating disease prevention behavior

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.