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	• Multiplicity • Heterogeneity • Single reviewer • Open data • Protocols • Urology
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heterogeneity • Unplanned or unjustified subgroup or sensitivity analyses • Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect)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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	No