| Ref ID | 847 |
| First Author | L. Beresford |
| Journal | BMJ OPEN |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/195496/ |
| Keywords |
• COVID • Overlapping reviews/redundancy • Protocols • Living • Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
• Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | United Kingdom |
| Aim | To explore the extent of and reasons for duplication within PROSPERO registration records related to COVID-19, including whether the extent differed between rapid, full and living systematic reviews and/or particular areas of COVID-19-related research. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 1054 COVID-19 systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO between March 2020 and January 2021. 138/1954 were submitted when at least one similar protocol was already registered in PROSPERO. Duplication was greatest in reviews of COVID-19 treatments. There were 41 responses from 138 authors invited to take part in the survey. Most respondents said that they identified similar reviews when they searched PROSPERO prior to registration. Main reasons given for ‘duplication’ were differences in PICOS or planned analyses (n=13), poor quality of previous registrations (n=2) and the need to update evidence (n=3). The authors of the study also identified full systematic reviews registered after living systematic reviews on the same topic. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1054 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 3013 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |