More systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO each year, but few records’ status was up-to-date

Ref ID 609
First Author T. Rombey
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2020
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S089543561930650X
Keywords • Protocols
• General medical
• Currency
Problem(s) • Unpublished or "zombie" reviews (the file-drawer effect)
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Germany
Aim To assess the proportion of systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO including publication years, review focus, and country in a random sample of 500 non-Cochrane systematic reviews indexed in PubMed between 2011 to 2018. In total, 76 (15.2%) of the SRs had been registered in PROSPERO. Additionally to compare registered and nonregistered SRs and to assess the up-to-dateness of the PROSPERO records’ status.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings For more than half of the analysed PROSPERO records (40/75; 53.3%), only one version existed, which means they have never been updated since their initial creation. 84.0% of the 75 analysed PROSPERO records were not up-to-date, and, although the SRs had already been published, 65.3% of the 75 analysed PROSPERO records were still listed as ‘‘ongoing.’’
Number of systematic reviews included 500
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 75709
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description