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	• Pre-specification • General medical • Protocols • Low methodological quality • Low reporting quality
Problem(s)	• Low reporting (PRISMA) quality • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • No registered or published protocol
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes