Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status

Ref ID 607
First Author E. Runjic
Year Of Publishing 2019
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0895435619304639
Keywords Protocols
Problem(s) Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect)
Number of systematic reviews included 1408
Summary of Findings In 2018, around half of systematic reviews had not been published at least 1.3 years after registration in PROSPERO. The majority of PROSPERO records had ‘‘ongoing’’ (76.3%) and ‘‘completed not published’’ (9.2%) status. Authors' main reasons for discontinuing systematic reviews were publication of a systematic review with a similar or same topic by another author team and rejection of the systematic review manuscript
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