Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers

Abstract Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, it is highly recommended that authors publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. our aim was to assess the awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included the authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016, and they were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. An online questionnaire was sent to each participant via e-mail after receiving their approval to join the study. We have sent 6650 emails and received 275 responses.Results: A total of 270 authors responses were complete and included in the final analysis. Our results has shown that PROSPERO was the most common database used for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance time interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and according to their opinion that the other authors lack knowledge of protocol importance and mandance to be registered, was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant percenatge of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants have agreed that protocol registries play a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agree that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants believes that the main reason for not registering protocols, is that the other authors lack knowledge concerning obligation and importance to register the SR/MA protocols in advance. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

Download Full-text

Current issues in protocol registration for systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers

10.21203/rs.3.rs-18841/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Gehad Mohamed Tawfik ◽

Hoang Thi Nam Giang ◽

Sherief Ghozy ◽

Ahmed M. Altibi ◽

Hend Kandil ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Meta Analysis ◽

Significant Proportion ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Survey Study ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Online Questionnaire ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Protocol Registration ◽

Acceptance Interval ◽

Lack Of Knowledge

Abstract Background Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, authors are strongly suggested to publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. We aimed to assess awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process.Methods A cross-sectional survey study included all authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016 were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. Upon receiving their approval to join our study, an online questionnaire was sent via e-mail to each participant.Results A total of 270 authors' responses were complete and were included in the final analysis. Our results showed that PROSPERO was the most commonly used database for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and their lack of knowledge of its importance was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant proportion of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants agreed that protocol registries have a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agreed that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory.Conclusion Lack of knowledge about SR/MA protocol registration process seems to be the primary reason for not registering such protocols. Therefore, interventions for increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers would be welcome.

Download Full-text

Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers

10.21203/rs.3.rs-18841/v6 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Gehad Mohamed Tawfik ◽

Hoang Thi Nam Giang ◽

Sherief Ghozy ◽

Ahmed M. Altibi ◽

Hend Kandil ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Meta Analysis ◽

Significant Proportion ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Survey Study ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Online Questionnaire ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Knowing That ◽

Protocol Registration ◽

Acceptance Interval

Abstract Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, authors are strongly suggested to publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. We aimed to assess awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included all authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016 were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. Upon receiving their approval to join our study, an online questionnaire was sent via e-mail to each participant. We received 275 responses from 6650 successfully sent emails. Results: A total of 270 authors' responses were complete and were included in the final analysis. Our results showed that PROSPERO was the most commonly used database for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and their opinion that lack of knowledge of its importance and mandance to be registered was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant proportion of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants agreed that protocol registries have a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agreed that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants seemed that the primary reason for not registering such protocols, that was not knowing that protocols must or should be mandatory. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

Download Full-text

Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers

10.21203/rs.3.rs-18841/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Gehad Mohamed Tawfik ◽

Hoang Thi Nam Giang ◽

Sherief Ghozy ◽

Ahmed M. Altibi ◽

Hend Kandil ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Meta Analysis ◽

Significant Proportion ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Survey Study ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Online Questionnaire ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Knowing That ◽

Protocol Registration ◽

Acceptance Interval

Abstract Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, authors are strongly suggested to publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. We aimed to assess awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included all authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016 were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. Upon receiving their approval to join our study, an online questionnaire was sent via e-mail to each participant. We received 275 responses from 6650 successfully sent emails.Results: A total of 270 authors' responses were complete and were included in the final analysis. Our results showed that PROSPERO was the most commonly used database for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and their opinion that lack of knowledge of its importance and mandance to be registered was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant proportion of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants agreed that protocol registries have a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agreed that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants seemed that the primary reason for not registering such protocols, that was not knowing that protocols must or should be mandatory. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

Download Full-text

Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers

10.21203/rs.3.rs-18841/v4 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Gehad Mohamed Tawfik ◽

Hoang Thi Nam Giang ◽

Sherief Ghozy ◽

Ahmed M. Altibi ◽

Hend Kandil ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Meta Analysis ◽

Significant Proportion ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Survey Study ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Online Questionnaire ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Knowing That ◽

Protocol Registration ◽

Acceptance Interval

Abstract Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, authors are strongly suggested to publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. We aimed to assess awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included all authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016 were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. Upon receiving their approval to join our study, an online questionnaire was sent via e-mail to each participant. We received 275 responses from 6650 successfully sent emails. Results: A total of 270 authors' responses were complete and were included in the final analysis. Our results showed that PROSPERO was the most commonly used database for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and their opinion that lack of knowledge of its importance and mandance to be registered was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant proportion of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants agreed that protocol registries have a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agreed that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants seemed that the primary reason for not registering such protocols, that was not knowing that protocols must or should be mandatory. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

Download Full-text

Benefits and Challenges of Using Virtual Primary Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An International Cross-sectional Survey Study (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.33588 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Edmond Li ◽

Rosy Tsopra ◽

Geronimo Jimenez ◽

Alice Serafini ◽

Gustavo Gusso ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Care Delivery ◽

Lessons Learned ◽

Survey Study ◽

Free Text ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Online Questionnaire ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Face To Face ◽

Remote Care

BACKGROUND With the onset of COVID-19, general practitioners (GPs) and patients worldwide swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to digital remote consultations. There is a need to evaluate how this global shift has impacted patient care, healthcare providers, patient and carer experience, and health systems. OBJECTIVE We explored GPs’ perspectives on the main benefits and challenges of using digital remote care. METHODS GPs across 20 countries completed an online questionnaire between June – September 2020. GPs’ perceptions on main barriers and challenges were explored using free-text questions. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS A total of 1,605 respondents participated in our survey. The benefits identified included reducing COVID-19 transmission risks, guaranteeing access and continuity of care, improved efficiency, faster access to care, improved convenience and communication with patients, greater work flexibility for providers, and hastening the digital transformation of primary care and accompanying legal frameworks. Main challenges included patient’s preference for face-to-face consultations, digital exclusion, lack of physical examinations, clinical uncertainty, delays in diagnosis and treatment, overuse and misuse of digital remote care, and unsuitability for certain types of consultations. Other challenges include the lack of formal guidance, higher workloads, remuneration issues, organisational culture, technical difficulties, implementation and financial issues, and regulatory weaknesses. CONCLUSIONS At the frontline of care delivery, GPs can provide important insights on what worked well, why, and how during the pandemic. Lessons learned can be used to inform the adoption of improved virtual care solutions, and support the long-term development of platforms that are more technologically robust, secure. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/30099

Download Full-text

Pharmacists’ Prescribing in Saudi Arabia: Cross-Sectional Study Describing Current Practices and Future Perspectives

Pharmacy ◽

10.3390/pharmacy8030160 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (3) ◽

pp. 160

Author(s):

Alyaa M. Ajabnoor ◽

Richard J. Cooper

Keyword(s):

Saudi Arabia ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Survey Study ◽

Prescribing Practices ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Online Questionnaire ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Hospital Pharmacists ◽

Pharmacist Prescribing ◽

Independent Prescribing

Pharmacist prescribing is being increasingly undertaken to better use their skills and reduce the workload of existing prescribers such as doctors, often using formal processes to legitimate these activities. In developing countries like Saudi Arabia, however, pharmacists’ prescribing remains informal with no legislation or formal training and there is a lack of research and understanding into such practices. Therefore, we aimed to describe current pharmacist prescribing practices in Saudi Arabia and explore pharmacists’ views about pharmacists’ prescribing. This is a cross-sectional survey study using an online questionnaire of hospital pharmacists in Saudi Arabia about pharmacists’ prescribing, and associated views about prescribing legislation and barriers to implementing pharmacist prescribing. Over a quarter (28.5%) of pharmacists reported themselves as prescribers, 49% were following a collaborative prescribing model, 18% independent prescribing, and 33% were doing both. Ninety percent of prescribers reported confidence in prescribing the appropriate treatment and 92.3% perceived they will benefit from more prescribing training. Healthcare practice culture and pharmacist’s competency were identified as barriers. There is an overall support for pharmacists’ prescribing in Saudi Arabia among this sample of hospital pharmacists, with limitations in resources and the absence of standardized prescribing training being perceived as key barriers to pharmacists’ prescribing.

Download Full-text

Responses of paediatric emergency departments to the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: a cross-sectional survey study

BMJ Paediatrics Open ◽

10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001269 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. e001269

Author(s):

Katy Rose ◽

Silvia Bressan ◽

Kate Honeyford ◽

Zsolt Bognar ◽

Danilo Buonsenso ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Emergency Departments ◽

Incidence Rates ◽

Survey Study ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Online Questionnaire ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Paediatric Emergency ◽

Site Characteristics ◽

Telephone Advice ◽

Limited Change

ObjectiveUnderstanding how paediatric emergency departments (PEDs) across Europe adapted their healthcare pathways in response to COVID-19 will help guide responses to ongoing waves of COVID-19 and potential future pandemics. This study aimed to evaluate service reconfiguration across European PEDs during the initial COVID-19 wave.DesignThis cross-sectional survey included 39 PEDs in 17 countries. The online questionnaire captured (1) study site characteristics, (2) departmental changes and (3) pathways for children with acute illness pre and during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic (January–May 2020). Number of changes to health services, as a percentage of total possible changes encompassed by the survey, was compared with peak national SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates, and for both mixed and standalone paediatric centres.ResultsOverall, 97% (n=38) of centres remained open as usual during the pandemic. The capacity of 18 out of 28 (68%) short-stay units decreased; in contrast, 2 units (7%) increased their capacity. In 12 (31%) PEDs, they reported acting as receiving centres for diverted children during the pandemic.There was minimal change to the availability of paediatric consultant telephone advice services, consultant supervision of juniors or presence of responsible specialists within the PEDs.There was no relationship between percentage of possible change at each site and the peak national SARS-CoV-2 incidence rate. Mixed paediatric and adult hospitals made 8% of possible changes and standalone paediatric centres made 6% of possible changes (p=0.086).ConclusionOverall, there was limited change to the organisation or delivery of services across surveyed PEDs during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Download Full-text

The use of behaviour management techniques amongst paediatric dentists working in the Arabian region: a cross-sectional survey study

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry ◽

10.1007/s40368-020-00560-8 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

H. Nazzal ◽

O. I. El Shahawy ◽

S. Al-Jundi ◽

I. Hussein ◽

J. F. Tahmassebi

Keyword(s):

Positive Reinforcement ◽

Survey Study ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Online Questionnaire ◽

Chi Square ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Behaviour Management ◽

Factors Affecting ◽

Dental Practitioners ◽

Management Techniques

Abstract Purpose The purposes of this study were to investigate paediatric dental practitioners’ training and confidence in using dental behaviour management techniques in the Arabian region and to assess the factors influencing the application of advanced behaviour management techniques. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed to paediatric dental practitioners in the Arabian region. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Pearson Chi Square. Results A total of 113 responses were obtained. Of these, the majority were from Egypt (45%, n = 51). Just over half of the respondents were registered as specialists at the country where they were practicing paediatric dentistry (53%, n = 60). The use of behaviour management techniques varied amongst participants with tell-show-do (95%, n = 107) and positive reinforcement (89%, n = 101) being the most routinely used techniques. The majority of participants reported using voice control (83%) and parental separation (68%) techniques. Hand over mouth exercise (HOME) was only used by 24% (n = 27) of participants, whilst just over half of the participants, 53%, reported using protective stabilisation. A significant association was shown between country of practice, country of obtaining paediatric dental training, speciality status and the use of advanced behaviour management techniques, whilst confidence in using HOME and sedation were associated with work setting and country of practice, respectively. Conclusion The use of advanced behaviour management techniques was found to be high amongst respondents in the Arabian region. The lack of training in using these techniques, however, is of concern. Further assessment of the factors affecting the use of and confidence in applying advanced behaviour management techniques in the Arabian region is needed.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of Matrix Band Systems for Posterior Proximal Restorations among Egyptian Dentists: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Acta Stomatologica Croatica ◽

10.15644/asc54/4/6 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 54 (4) ◽

pp. 392-400

Author(s):

Omar Osama Shaalan

Keyword(s):

Resin Composite ◽

Matrix System ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Online Questionnaire ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Academic Degree ◽

Contact Points ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Social Media Platforms ◽

E Mail

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the techniques of matricing used by Egyptian dentists, and evaluate the influence of these techniques on the reproduction of optimum proximal contacts for posterior proximal resin composite restorations. Material and methods: An online questionnaire was developed and sent to 785 dentists via e-mail and social media platforms. The survey asked the participants about the following: the highest academic degree achieved and their experience, techniques of matricing used, brands of matricing systems used, assessment of proximal contact points, their evaluation of the contact points they reproduced, and their assessment of the restorations’ emergence profiles. Results: A total of 415 dentists participated in the study (response rate 52.8%). 308 dentists (74%) preferred using the sectional matrix system, while 107 dentists (26%) preferred using the circumferential matrix system. One hundred twenty-six dentists (31%) reported that the circumferential matrix systems reproduced optimum contacts, 105 dentists (25%) reported tight contacts and 184 dentists (44%) reported open contacts. However, for the sectional matrix systems, the optimum contacts were reported by 279 dentists (67%) tight contacts by 109 dentists (26%) and open contacts by 27 dentists (7%). There was a statistically significant difference between the sectional matrix systems and the circumferential matrix systems regarding the tightness of the proximal contact points (P<0.0001). Conclusions: Egyptian dentists preferred using the sectional matrix systems. The survey indicated that optimum contact points were highly associated with the sectional matrix systems, while poor (open and tight) contacts were highly associated with the circumferential matrix systems.

Download Full-text