Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned

Ref ID 518
First Author C. A. Silagy
Journal JAMA
Year Of Publishing 2002
URL https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/194984/joc11902.pdf
Keywords • Protocols
• Cochrane
• General medical
Problem(s) • Undocumented or unjustified deviations to the review protocol
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Australia
Aim To assess the extent to which the content of published Cochrane protocols had change compared with previously published versions of the protocol.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings 91% of reviews had at least one section that had undergone a major change compared with the most recently published protocol. The greatest variation between protocols and reviews was in the methods section in which 68% of reviews had undergone a major change. The authors highlight that changes made to the protocol that could have been based on prior knowledge of the results are of most concern.
Number of systematic reviews included 47
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 66
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description