Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

Ref ID 338
First Author L. Ge
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(17)30045-8/fulltext
Keywords Protocols
Pre-specification
General medical
Low reporting quality
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) No registered or published protocol
Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included 150
Summary of Findings Methodological and reporting quality of registered reviews were superior to nonregistered reviews. The total R-AMSTAR score of registered reviews was higher than nonregistered reviews [mean difference (MD) 5 4.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.70, 5.94]. Sensitivity analysis by excluding the registration-related item presented similar result (MD 5 4.34, 95% CI: 3.28, 5.40). Total PRISMA scores of registered reviews were significantly higher than nonregistered reviews (all reviews: MD 5 1.47, 95% CI: 0.64-2.30; non-Cochrane reviews: MD 5 1.49, 95% CI: 0.56-2.42). However, the difference in the total PRISMA score was no longer statistically significant after excluding the item related to registration (item 5). Regression analyses showed similar results.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes