scholarly journals Where to prospectively register a systematic review

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Tanja Rombey
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Open Science ◽  
New Developments ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Study Type ◽  
Different Characteristics ◽  
Responsible Party

Abstract Background Prospective registration aims to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of research and to increase transparency. In addition, prospective registration of systematic reviews is argued to help preventing unintended duplication, thereby reducing research waste. PROSPERO was launched in 2011 as the first prospective register for systematic reviews. While it has long been the only option to prospectively register systematic reviews, recently there have been new developments. Our aim was to identify and characterize current options to prospectively register a systematic review to assist review authors in choosing a suitable register. Methods To identify systematic review registers, we independently performed internet searches in January 2021 using keywords related to systematic reviews and prospective registration. “Registration” was defined as the process of entering information about a planned systematic review into a database before starting the systematic review process. We collected data on the characteristics of the identified registries and contacted the responsible party of each register for verification of the data related to their registry. Results Overall, we identified five options to prospectively register a systematic review: PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry, and INPLASY, which are specific to systematic reviews, and the Open Science Framework Registries and protocols.io, which represent generic registers open to any study type. Detailed information on each register is presented in tables in the main text. Regarding the systematic-review-specific registries, authors have to trade-off between the costs of registration and the processing time of their registration record. All registers provide an option to search for systematic reviews already registered in the register. However, it is unclear how useful these search functions are. Conclusion Authors can prospectively register their systematic review in five registries, which come with different characteristics and features. The research community should discuss fair and sustainable financing models for registers that are not operated by for-profit organizations.

scholarly journals Published patterns of spin in biomedical literature: a protocol for a meta-research study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e043784
Author(s):  
Naichuan Su ◽  
Michiel van der Linden ◽  
Geert JMG van der Heijden ◽  
Stefan Listl ◽  
Stefan Schandelmaier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionSpin is defined as reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and create misleading conclusions by suggesting more favourable results. Such unjustifiable and misleading misrepresentation may negatively influence the development of further studies, clinical practice and healthcare policies. Spin manifests in various patterns in different sections of publications (titles, abstracts and main texts). The primary aim of this study is to identify reported spin patterns and assess the prevalence of spin in general, and the prevalence of spin patterns reported in biomedical literature based on previously published systematic reviews and literature reviews on spin.Methods and analysisPubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS will be searched to identify systematic or literature reviews on spin in biomedicine. To improve the comprehensiveness of the search, the snowballing method will be used to broaden the search. The data on spin-related outcomes and characteristics of the included studies will be extracted. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with selective items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 checklist. A new classification scheme for spin patterns will be developed if the classifications of spin patterns identified in the included studies vary. The prevalence of spin and spin patterns will be pooled based on meta-analyses if the classification schemes for spin are comparable across included studies. Otherwise, the prevalence will be described qualitatively. The seriousness of spin patterns will be assessed based on a Delphi consensus study.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam Ethics Review Committee (2020250). The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.RegistrationOpen Science Framework: osf.io/hzv6e

scholarly journals Head of bed elevation to relieve gastroesophageal reflux symptoms: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Loai Albarqouni ◽  
Ray Moynihan ◽  
Justin Clark ◽  
Anna Mae Scott ◽  
Anne Duggan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Gastroesophageal Reflux ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Bed Elevation ◽  
Protocol Registration ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Drug Interventions ◽  
Head Of Bed Elevation

Abstract Background Overuse of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) – frequently used for relieving symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD) – raises long-term safety concerns, warranting evidence-based non-drug interventions. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of head-of-bed elevation on relieving symptoms of GORD in adults. Methods We included controlled trials comparing the effect of head-of-bed elevation interventions to control in adults with GORD. Two independent reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed quality of included studies. Primary outcomes were changes in GORD symptoms and use of PPIs. Results We screened 1206 records; and included five trials (four cross-over and one factorial) comprising 228 patients. All five included trials were judged to be at high-risk of performance bias and four of selection bias. Of five included trials, two used ‘bed blocks’ under the bed legs; one used ‘sleeping on a wedge’ pillow, and two used both. High heterogeneity in outcome measures and reported outcomes data precluded meta-analyses. The four studies that reported on GORD symptoms found an improvement among participants in the head-of-bed elevation; a high-quality crossover trial showed a clinical important reduction in symptom scores at 6 weeks (risk ratio of 2.1; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.6). These results are supported by the observed improvement in physiological intra-oesophageal pH measurements. Conclusions Methodological and reporting limitations in available literature preclude definitive recommendations. However, head-of-bed elevation could be still considered as a cheap and safe alternative to drug interventions with unfavourable safety profiles. Protocol registration Open Science Framework: http://osf.io/2hz3j

scholarly journals Research using population-based administration data integrated with longitudinal data in child protection settings: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0249088
Author(s):  
Fadzai Chikwava ◽  
Reinie Cordier ◽  
Anna Ferrante ◽  
Melissa O’Donnell ◽  
Renée Speyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Longitudinal Data ◽  
Administrative Data ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Data Linkage ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Almost All

Introduction Over the past decade there has been a marked growth in the use of linked population administrative data for child protection research. This is the first systematic review of studies to report on research design and statistical methods used where population-based administrative data is integrated with longitudinal data in child protection settings. Methods The systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The electronic databases Medline (Ovid), PsycINFO, Embase, ERIC, and CINAHL were systematically searched in November 2019 to identify all the relevant studies. The protocol for this review was registered and published with Open Science Framework (Registration DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/96PX8) Results The review identified 30 studies reporting on child maltreatment, mental health, drug and alcohol abuse and education. The quality of almost all studies was strong, however the studies rated poorly on the reporting of data linkage methods. The statistical analysis methods described failed to take into account mediating factors which may have an indirect effect on the outcomes of interest and there was lack of utilisation of multi-level analysis. Conclusion We recommend reporting of data linkage processes through following recommended and standardised data linkage processes, which can be achieved through greater co-ordination among data providers and researchers.

scholarly journals Impactos psicossociais do isolamento social por covid-19 em crianças, adolescentes e jovens: scoping review

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. e73
Author(s):  
Letícia Camilo Santos ◽  
Tayná July Silva Pinheiro ◽  
Thayane Ingrid Xavier de Andrade ◽  
Paulo Henrique Alves Sousa ◽  
Patrícia Pinto Braga ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objetivo: mapear os impactos psicossociais causados pelo isolamento social, durante a pandemia da COVID-19, em crianças, adolescentes e jovens. Método: revisão de escopo realizada de acordo com o método proposto por JBI e adotando as recomendações do guia internacional Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Protocolo de revisão registrado no Open Science Framework. Resultados: compuseram esta revisão 20 artigos. A depressão (70%; n=14) e a ansiedade (60%; n=16) foram os sintomas mais frequentes entre as investigações estudadas. Identificou-se um aumento do tempo de tela e utilização de internet. Conclusão: o isolamento social em função da COVID-19 tem impactado socialmente e psicologicamente na vida de crianças e adolescentes. O adoecimento mental deste público é uma realidade e as repercussões no desenvolvimento infanto-juvenil não podem ser desconsideradas.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of psychological interventions in the treatment of perinatal depression: A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariana Branquinho ◽  
María de la Fe Rodriguez-Muñoz ◽  
Berta Rodrigues Maia ◽  
Mariana Marques ◽  
Marcela Matos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Perinatal Depression ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Students’ preparedness for disasters in schools: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e000913
Author(s):  
Hamed Seddighi ◽  
Homeira Sajjadi ◽  
Sepideh Yousefzadeh ◽  
Mónica López López ◽  
Meroe Vameghi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Disaster Preparedness ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Ethics Code ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionChildren are one of the most vulnerable groups in disasters. Improving students’ knowledge and skills to prepare for disasters can play a major role in children’s health. School as a place to teach children can make a significant contribution to provide the necessary skills. This study aims to identify the effects, strengths and weaknesses of interventions in schools to prepare children for disasters.Methods and analysisWe use Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to develop a protocol for this systematic review. The included studies will report on the results of interventions targeting ‘schoolchildren’ defined as individuals between 4 and under 18 years old studying in schools. Different electronic databases will be used for a comprehensive literature search, including MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE to identify the records that match the mentioned inclusion criteria published till December 2020. The main search terms are ‘disaster’, ‘preparedness’, ‘children’ and ‘school’. Four types of data will be extracted from the qualified studies including study characteristics (study design, year of publication and geographical region where the study was conducted), participant characteristics (sample size, age and gender), intervention characteristics (aim of intervention, intervention facilitators and barriers) and intervention outcomes. The quality appraisal of the selected papers will be conducted using Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias for quantitative studies and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative studies. We use a narrative synthesis for this systematic review. The narrative synthesis refers to an approach to systematic reviews which focuses mostly on applying words and texts to summarise and explain findings.Ethics and disseminationThis paper is a part of a Ph.D. thesis of Hamed Seddighi at University of Social welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences with ethics code IR.USWR.REC.1399.008 approved by the Ethics Committee of the above-mentioned university.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020146536.

scholarly journals Consequences of the COVID-19 Syndemic for Nutritional Health: A Systematic Review

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1168
Author(s):  
Cristian Neira ◽  
Rejane Godinho ◽  
Fabio Rincón ◽  
Rodrigo Mardones ◽  
Janari Pedroso
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Physical Contact ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Study Objective ◽  
Eating Style ◽  
Healthy Nutrition ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Confinement at home, quarantine, and social distancing are some measures adopted worldwide to prevent the spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2), which has been generating an important alteration in the routines and qualities of life of people. The impact on health is still being evaluated, and consequences in the nutritional field are not entirely clear. The study objective was to evaluate the current evidence about the impact that preventive measures of physical contact restriction causes in healthy nutrition. A systematic review was carried out according to the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” PRISMA Group and Cochrane method for rapid systematic reviews. Searching was performed in six electronic databases and evaluated articles published between 2010 and 2020, including among their participants adult subjects who had been exposed to the preventive measures of physical contact restriction. Seven studies met the selection criteria and reported an overall increase in food consumption, weight, Body Mass Index (BMI), and a change in eating style. Findings suggest that healthy nutrition is affected by preventive measures to restrict physical contact as a result of the COVID-19 syndemic.

scholarly journals A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol examining the clinical characteristics and epidemiological features of olfactory dysfunction (OD) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Qian-Xiu Tan ◽  
Wai Tak Victor Li ◽  
Wing-Zi Shum ◽  
Sheung Chit Chu ◽  
Hang-Long Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Olfactory Dysfunction ◽  
Statistical Analyses ◽  
Human Populations ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Analysis Protocol

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused recurring and major outbreaks in multiple human populations around the world. The plethora of clinical presentations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been described extensively, of which olfactory dysfunction (OD) was established as an important and common extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19 infection. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on peer-reviewed articles which described clinical data of OD in COVID-19 patients. Methods This research protocol has been prospectively registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42020196202). CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed, as well as Chinese medical databases China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP and WANFANG, will be searched using keywords including ‘COVID-19’, ‘coronavirus disease’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘novel coronavirus’, ‘anosmia’, ‘hyposmia’, ‘loss of smell’, and ‘olfactory dysfunction’. Systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. Articles will be screened according to pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria to extract studies that include new clinical data investigating the effect of COVID-19 on olfactory dysfunction. Included articles will be reviewed in full; data including patient demographics, clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD, methods of olfactory assessment and relevant clinical outcomes will be extracted. Statistical analyses will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3. Discussion This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol will aim to collate and synthesise all available clinical evidence regarding COVID-19-related OD as an important neurosensory dysfunction of COVID-19 infection. A comprehensive search strategy and screening process will be conducted to incorporate broad clinical data for robust statistical analyses and representation. The outcome of the systematic review and meta-analysis will aim to improve our understanding of the symptomatology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19-related OD and identify knowledge gaps in its disease process, which will guide future research in this specific neurosensory defect. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196202.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document