The fate of urological systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO

Ref ID	34
First Author	S. Khaleel
Journal	WORLD JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2019
URL	https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00345-019-03032-x.pdf
Keywords	Protocols Multiplicity Open data Heterogeneity Urology Single reviewer
Problem(s)	Undocumented or unjustified deviations to the review protocol Multiplicity of outcomes and lack of pre-specification for outcome reporting Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity Unplanned or unjustified subgroup or sensitivity analyses Single reviewer / lack of double checking Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect)
Number of systematic reviews included	576
Summary of Findings	Of the 576 registered urologic systematic reviews, 225 (39.1%) had corresponding full-text publications. Of these, only 40 (17.7%) had updated their PROSPERO entry to indicate review publication. Little over half of published reviews (52.7%) explicitly stated primary outcome(s) that matched the primary outcome of their corresponding PROSPERO protocol. 25.9% failed to define any primary endpoint(s). A majority (82.4%) of protocol authors indicated the intent of performing the literature screening process in duplicate; of these, 91.8% actually did so in the full-text publication. Roughly half (53.2%) of reviews planned to evaluate heterogeneity based on their protocol. Of these, only 57.0% assessed heterogeneity in their final product. Only a third (34.3%) of the protocols had specified whether they intended to perform a subgroup analysis, and less than half of these protocols (45.2%) were concordant with their planned protocol in this regard.
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?	No