Abstract
Recently, the authors of this study undertook a systematic review, and during the
data collection phase, a systematic review was published on the same topic, despite
not being registered on Prospective Registration of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).
As a result we sought to perform an evidence-based review of the dermatology literature
evaluating PROSPERO registration for published systematic reviews. Prospective systematic
review protocol registration can help optimize resources, time, and the efforts of
research teams rather than committing unplanned duplication. Our data on journals’
author guidelines showed that although 38.8% of journals mentioned systematic reviews
in their author guidelines, only 2.5% (n = 2) required PROSPERO registration. Further
analysis revealed that only 13.7% (n = 204 of 1,492) of published systematic reviews
in dermatology literature were registered in PROSPERO. Our study highlights the paucity
of PROSPERO-registered systematic reviews in dermatology journals, as well as the
need to require prospective protocol registration and require submission of a Preferred
Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. We believe these
measures will ultimately improve the quality of systematic reviews in dermatology
literature.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Clinics in DermatologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
Cochrane Library. About Cochrane reviews. Available at: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews. Accessed August 19, 2021.
- Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study.PLoS Med. 2016; 13e1002028
- More systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO each year, but few records’ status was up-to-date.J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 117: 60-67
- Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses.PLoS One. 2013; 8: e83138
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 13, 2021
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
