Unpublished systematic reviews and financial support: a meta-epidemiological study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Problem(s) • Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect)
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Survey/questionnaire of authors opinions/practices
First Author Country Japan
Aim To assess the publication status of registered systematic reviews in the first year that PROSPERO launched (Feb 2011-Feb 2012) and to assess the association between publication and the existence of funding or conflicts of interest.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings From the 326 protocols published in PROSPERO, 26%) remained unpublished at least 65 months after registration.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.
Number of systematic reviews included 326
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 326
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description