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
Year Of Publishing 2022
Keywords Protocols
Non-Cochrane reviews
Low methodological quality
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?