- Framework of problems / Objective
- Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect)
- 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 |
Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
Year Of Publishing | 2019 |
URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0895435619304639 |
Keywords |
Protocols Pain |
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Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect) |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 |