Is the quality of systematic reviews influenced by prospective registration: a methods review of systematic musculoskeletal physical therapy reviews

Ref ID	903
First Author	S.P. Riley
Journal	JOURNAL OF MANUAL & MANIPULATIVE THERAPY
Year Of Publishing	2022
URL	https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10669817.2022.2110419
Keywords	• Low methodological quality • Protocols • Non-Cochrane reviews • Musculoskeletal • Pre-specification • Transparency
Problem(s)	• Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria • Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality • No registered or published protocol • Undocumented or unjustified deviations to the review protocol
Number of systematic reviews included	20
Summary of Findings	From twenty included musculoskeletal systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE, between 1 January 2018 and 18 August 2021. One (5.0%) of the 20 included reviews were prospectively registered and published. Of these, 13 (65.0%) were registered through PROSPERO, 2 (15.4%) prospectively, and 11 retrospectively. Nineteen (95.0%) of the 20 identified systematic reviews was categorized as ‘critically low’ methodological quality (AMSTAR 2). The AMSTAR-2 items that were least reported were: availability or deviation from a protocol; authors explaining their selection of the study designs for inclusion; authors providing a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions; authors reporting on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	N/A