Institute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Department of Health Services Research, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, 26111, Oldenburg, Germany.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Mar 13;19(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0698-8.
An a priori design is essential to reduce the risk of bias in systematic reviews (SRs). To this end, authors can register their SR with PROSPERO, and/or publish a SR protocol in an academic journal. The latter has the advantage that the manuscript for the SR protocol is usually peer-reviewed. However, since authors ought not to begin/continue the SR before their protocol has been accepted for publication, it is crucial that SR protocols are processed in a timely manner. Our main aim was to descriptively analyse the peer review process of SR protocols published in 'BMC Systematic Reviews' from 2012 to 2017.
We systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed for all SR protocols published in 'BMC Systematic Reviews' between 2012 and 2017, except for protocols for overviews, scoping reviews or realist reviews. Data were extracted from the SR protocols and Open Peer Review reports. For each round of peer review, two researchers judged the extent of revision (minor/major) based on the reviewer reports. Their content was further investigated by two researchers in a random 10%-sample using PRISMA-P as a guideline. All data were analysed descriptively.
We identified 544 eligible protocols published in 'BMC Systematic Reviews' between 2012 and 2017. Of those, 485 (89.2%) also registered the SR in PROSPERO, the majority (87.4%) before first submission of the manuscript for the SR protocol (median 49 days). The absolute number of published SR protocols increased from 2012 to 2017 (21 vs 145 protocols), as did the median processing time (61 vs 142 days from submission to acceptance) and the proportion of protocols requiring a major revision after first peer review (19.1% vs 52.4%). Reviewer comments most frequently addressed the PRISMA-P item 'Eligibility criteria'. Overall, 76.0% of the reviewer comments suggested more transparency.
The number of published SR protocols increased over the years, but so did the processing time. In 2017, it took several months from submission to acceptance, which is critical from an author's perspective. New models of peer review such as post publication peer review for SR protocols should be investigated. This could probably be realized with PROSPERO.
系统评价（SR）中需要预先设计，以降低偏倚风险。为此，作者可以在 PROSPERO 上注册其 SR，并/或在学术期刊上发表 SR 方案。后者的优势在于，SR 方案的手稿通常经过同行评审。然而，由于作者在其方案获得发表之前不应开始/继续进行 SR，因此及时处理 SR 方案至关重要。我们的主要目的是描述性分析 2012 年至 2017 年期间发表在《BMC 系统评价》中的 SR 方案的同行评审过程。
我们通过 PubMed 中的 MEDLINE 系统地搜索了 2012 年至 2017 年期间发表在《BMC 系统评价》中的所有 SR 方案，但不包括综述、范围综述或现实主义综述的方案。从 SR 方案和公开同行评审报告中提取数据。对于每一轮同行评审，两位研究人员根据评审员的报告判断修订程度（小/大）。他们的内容通过两位研究人员在随机的 10%样本中使用 PRISMA-P 作为指南进行进一步调查。所有数据均进行描述性分析。
我们确定了 2012 年至 2017 年间发表在《BMC 系统评价》中的 544 份合格方案。其中，485 份（89.2%）方案还在 PROSPERO 上注册了 SR，大多数（87.4%）方案在提交 SR 方案手稿之前（中位数为 49 天）。发表的 SR 方案数量从 2012 年增加到 2017 年（21 份方案增加到 145 份），中位处理时间（从提交到接受的 61 天增加到 142 天）和首次同行评审后需要重大修订的方案比例（19.1%增加到 52.4%）也有所增加。评审员的评论主要涉及 PRISMA-P 项目“入选标准”。总体而言，76.0%的评审员评论建议提高透明度。
发表的 SR 方案数量逐年增加，但处理时间也随之增加。2017 年，从提交到接受需要几个月的时间，这对作者来说是至关重要的。应研究 SR 方案的同行评审新模式，如发表后的同行评审。这可以通过 PROSPERO 来实现。
