- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
- Extent and nature of duplication in PROSPERO using COVID-19-related registrations: a retrospective investigation and survey
Ref ID | 847 |
First Author | L. Beresford |
Journal | BMJ OPEN |
Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
URL | https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/195496/ |
Keywords |
Protocols COVID Non-Cochrane reviews Overlapping reviews/redundancy Living |
Problem(s) |
Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste |
Number of systematic reviews included | 1054 |
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. |
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 |