Unpublished systematic reviews and financial support: a meta-epidemiological study

Ref ID	266
First Author	H. Tsujimoto
Journal	BMC RESEARCH NOTES
Year Of Publishing	2017
URL	https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5717810/pdf/13104_2017_Article_3043.pdf
Keywords	• Publication bias • Protocols • General medical • Currency
Problem(s)	• Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect)
Number of systematic reviews included	326
Summary of Findings	From the 326 protocols published in PROSPERO, 26%) remained unpublished at least 65 months after registration. Median time to publication from protocol registration was 16.3 months. Funding for systematic reviews was associated with publication [odds ratio (OR) = 2.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.26 to 3.50]. There was no significant association of author-reported conflicts of interest with publication (OR = 2.35; 95% CI = 0.67 to 8.20). Twenty systematic reviews were not published despite the authors reporting completion of the reviews in PROSPERO.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes