See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Nguyen Tien Huy
Ton Duc Thang University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9543-9440
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
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.
Keywords
Registration, PROSPERO, idea theft, duplication, systematic review, meta-analysis
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 04 Aug, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 03 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Submission checks complete
On 30 Jul, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 27 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editor assigned
On 20 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Jul, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 16 Jul, 2020
Version 3
Posted 08 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 10 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 06 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 05 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 05 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 18 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 18 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 16 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 15 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 15 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 14 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 13 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 07 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 31 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 30 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 30 Mar, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
Learn more about our company.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Nguyen Tien Huy
Ton Duc Thang University
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9543-9440
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 04 Aug, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 03 Aug, 2020
No comments provided
Submission checks complete
On 30 Jul, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 27 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editor assigned
On 20 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 17 Jul, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 16 Jul, 2020
Version 3
Posted 08 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 10 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 06 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 05 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 05 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 18 Jun, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 18 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 18 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 16 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 15 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 15 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 14 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 13 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 13 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 07 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 16 Apr, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 14 Apr, 2020
Editor assigned
On 31 Mar, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 30 Mar, 2020
Editor invited
On 30 Mar, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Health Economics & Outcomes Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Medical Research Methodology.
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.
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...