Department of Health Sciences, York Trials Unit, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK.
F1000Res. 2020 Jul 27;9:773. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.25181.2. eCollection 2020.
PROSPERO is an international prospective register for systematic review protocols. Many of the registrations are the only available source of information about planned methods. This study investigated the extent to which records in PROSPERO contained the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). : A random sample of 439 single entry PROSPERO records of reviews of health interventions registered in 2018 was identified. Using a piloted list of 19 PRISMA-P items, divided into 63 elements, two researchers independently assessed the registration records. Where the information was present or not applicable to the review, a score of 1 was assigned. Overall scores were calculated and comparisons made by stage of review at registration, whether or not a meta-analysis was planned and whether or not funding/sponsorship was reported. : Some key methodological details, such as eligibility criteria, were relatively frequently reported, but much of the information recommended in PRISMA-P was not stated in PROSPERO registrations. Considering the 19 items, the mean score was 4.8 (SD 1.8; median 4; range 2-11) and across all the assessed records only 25% (2081/8227) of the items were scored as reported. Considering the 63 elements, the mean score was 33.4 (SD 5.8; median 33; range 18-47) and overall, 53% (14,469/27,279) of the elements were assessed as reported. Reporting was more frequent for items required in PROSPERO than optional items. The planned comparisons showed no meaningful differences between groups. : PROSPERO provides reviewers with the opportunity to be transparent in their planned methods and demonstrate efforts to reduce bias. However, where the PROSPERO record is the only available source of reporting, there is a significant shortfall in the items reported, compared to those recommended. This presents challenges in interpretation for those wishing to assess the validity of the final review.
PROSPERO 是一个国际前瞻性系统评价方案注册库。许多注册是关于计划方法的唯一可用信息来源。本研究旨在调查 PROSPERO 记录中包含系统评价和荟萃分析方案首选报告项目 (PRISMA-P) 的程度。：随机抽取了 2018 年注册的 439 项健康干预措施系统评价的 PROSPERO 单一条目记录，使用经过试验验证的 19 项 PRISMA-P 项目清单，分为 63 个要素，由两名研究人员独立评估注册记录。如果信息存在或不适用，则分配 1 分。根据注册时的审查阶段、是否计划进行荟萃分析以及是否报告资金/赞助情况计算总体得分并进行比较。：一些关键的方法学细节，如纳入标准，相对频繁地报告，但 PRISMA-P 中推荐的许多信息并未在 PROSPERO 注册中说明。考虑到 19 项内容，平均得分为 4.8（SD 1.8；中位数 4；范围 2-11），在所评估的所有记录中，只有 25%（2081/8227）的项目被评为已报告。考虑到 63 个要素，平均得分为 33.4（SD 5.8；中位数 33；范围 18-47），总体而言，53%（14,469/27,279）的要素被评估为已报告。在 PROSPERO 中要求的项目比可选项目的报告更为频繁。计划比较显示，各组之间没有明显差异。：PROSPERO 为评论员提供了在计划方法方面保持透明的机会，并展示了减少偏见的努力。然而，由于 PROSPERO 记录是报告的唯一可用来源，与推荐的项目相比，报告的项目明显不足。这给那些希望评估最终审查有效性的人带来了解释上的挑战。
