Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search

Ref ID	348
First Author	K. Allers
Journal	JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2018
URL	https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(17)30170-1/fulltext
Keywords	Protocols Pre-specification General medical Searching Currency
Problem(s)	Outdated searches Untimely (taking too long) or resource intensive No registered or published protocol
Number of systematic reviews included	160
Summary of Findings	Systematic reviews with protocols reported their methods more comprehensively than systematic reviews without protocols, but their median time from search to submission was longer (325 vs. 122 days; P < 0.001) meaning that the searches of systematic reviews with published protocols were about 200 days older compared with their controls. Almost two-thirds of the systematic reviews with protocols and about 10% of the controls could be found in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).
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