- Framework of problems / Transparent
- No registered or published protocol
- 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 |