Association Between Prospective Registration and Quality of Systematic Reviews in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-epidemiological Study

Ref ID 796
First Author Q. Zheng
Year Of Publishing 2021
Keywords Protocols
Low reporting quality
Non-Cochrane reviews
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) No registered or published protocol
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Low reporting (PRISMA) quality
Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
Poor consideration of publication bias
Following guidelines is no guarantee of a rigorous systematic review
Number of systematic reviews included 238
Summary of Findings From 238 included systematic reviews of type 2 diabetes mellitus indexed on PubMed between 2005 and 2018, higher scores were noted for registered reviews, relative to non-registered reviews (AMSTAR-2 mean score: 18.0 vs. 14.5, P = 0.000; PRISMA mean score: 20.4 vs. 17.6, P = 0.000). AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA scores were associated with registration status, country of the first author, and statistical results. The proportion discussing publication bias and reporting funding sources were <40% for both registered and non-registered systematic reviews.
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