Dataset Information

Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In response to growing recognition of the value of prospective registration of systematic review protocols, we planned to develop a web-based open access international register. In order for the register to fulfil its aims of reducing unplanned duplication, reducing publication bias, and providing greater transparency, it was important to ensure the appropriate data were collected. We therefore undertook a consultation process with experts in the field to identify a minimum dataset for registration.

Methods and findings

A two-round electronic modified Delphi survey design was used. The international panel surveyed included experts from areas relevant to systematic review including commissioners, clinical and academic researchers, methodologists, statisticians, information specialists, journal editors and users of systematic reviews. Direct invitations to participate were sent out to 315 people in the first round and 322 in the second round. Responses to an open invitation to participate were collected separately. There were 194 (143 invited and 51 open) respondents with a 100% completion rate in the first round and 209 (169 invited and 40 open) respondents with a 91% completion rate in the second round. In the second round, 113 (54%) of the participants reported having previously taken part in the first round. Participants were asked to indicate whether a series of potential items should be designated as optional or required registration items, or should not be included in the register. After the second round, a 70% or greater agreement was reached on the designation of 30 of 36 items.

Conclusions

The results of the Delphi exercise have established a dataset of 22 required items for the prospective registration of systematic reviews, and 18 optional items. The dataset captures the key attributes of review design as well as the administrative details necessary for registration.

SUBMITTER: Booth A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3217945 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: We sought to investigate the methodological and reporting quality of published systematic reviews describing randomized controlled trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus and analyze their association with status of protocol registration. Methods: We searched the PubMed database and identified non-Cochrane systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, reporting on type 2 diabetes mellitus and published between 2005 and 2018. We then randomly selected 20% of these reviews in each year, and performed methodological and reporting quality assessment using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review 2 (AMSTAR-2) checklist and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. We also conducted regression analyses to explore the association between characteristics of systematic reviews and AMSTAR-2 or PRISMA scores. Results: A total of 238 systematic reviews, including 33 registered and 205 non-registered articles, met the inclusion criteria and were subsequently reviewed. Analysis indicated an increase in both registered rates and quality of systematic reviews in type 2 diabetes mellitus over the recent years. With regards to methodological and reporting quality, we found higher scores in registered, relative to non-registered reviews (AMSTAR-2 mean score: 18.0 vs. 14.5, P = 0.000; PRISMA mean score: 20.4 vs. 17.6, P = 0.000). AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA scores were associated with registration status, country of the first author, and statistical results, whereas the proportion of discussing publication bias and reporting funding sources were <40% for both registered and non-registered systematic reviews. Conclusions: Methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in type 2 diabetes mellitus indicates an improvement in the recent years. However, the overall quality remains low, necessitating further improvement. Future studies are expected to pay more attention to prospective registration, description of publication bias and reporting of funding sources.

Project description:Over 200 georeferenced registered rephotographic compilations of the Faroe Islands are provided in this dataset. The position of each compilation is georeferenced and thus locatable on a map. Each compilation consists of a historical and a corresponding contemporary image showing the same scene. With steady object features, these two images of the same geolocation are aligned pixel accurately. In the summer of 2022, all contemporary images were photographed by A. Schaffland, while historical images were retrieved from the National Museum of Denmark collections. Images show Faroese landscape and cultural heritage sites, focusing on relevant areas when the historical images were taken, e.g., Kirkjubøur, Tórshavn, and Saksun. Historic images date from the end of the 19th century to the middle of the 20th century. The historical images were taken by scientists, surveyors, archaeologists, and painters. All historical images are in the public domain, have no known rights, or are shared under a CC license. The contemporary images by A. Schaffland are released under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. The dataset is organized as a GIS project. Historic images, not already georeferenced, were referenced with street view services. All historical images were added to the GIS database, containing camera position, viewing direction, etc. Each compilation can be displayed as an arrow from the camera position along the view direction on a map. Contemporary images were registered to historical images using a specialized tool. None or only a suboptimal rephotograph could be taken for some historical images. These historical images are still added to the database together with all other original images, providing additional data for improvements in rephotography methods in the upcoming years. The resulting image pairs can be used in image registration, landscape change, urban development, and cultural heritage research. Further, the database can be used for public engagement in heritage and as a benchmark for further rephotography and time-series projects.

Project description:This research-on-research study describes efforts to develop non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) by analyzing demographical and time-course collaborations between international institutions using protocols registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) or published in scientific journals. We have published an a priori protocol to develop this study. Protocols published in scientific journals were searched using the MEDLINE and Embase databases; the query terms "Systematic review" [Title] AND "protocol" [Title] were searched from February 2011 to December 2017. Protocols registered at PROSPERO during the same period were obtained by web scraping all non-Cochrane records with a Python script. After excluding protocols that had a fulfillment or duplication rate of less than 90%, they were classified as published "only in PROSPERO", "only in journals", or in "journals and PROSPERO". Results of data and metadata extraction using text mining processes were curated by two reviewers. These Datasets and R scripts are freely available to facilitate reproducibility. We obtained 20,814 protocols of non-Cochrane SRs. While "unique protocols" by reviewers' institutions from 60 countries were the most frequent, a median of 6 (2-150) institutions from 130 different countries were involved in the preparation of "collaborative protocols". The highest Ranked countries involved in overall protocol production were the UK, the U.S., Australia, Brazil, China, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. Most protocols were registered only in PROSPERO. However, the number of protocols published in scientific journals (924) or in both PROSPERO and journals (807) has increased over the last three years. Syst Rev and BMJ Open published more than half of the total protocols. While the more productive countries were involved in "unique" and "collaborative protocols", less productive countries only participated in "collaborative protocols" that were mainly published in PROSPERO. Our results suggest that, although most countries were involved in solitary production of protocols for non-Cochrane SRs during the study period, it would be useful to develop new strategies to promote international collaborations, especially with less productive countries.

Project description:BackgroundPerson-centred care is integral to high-quality health service provision, though concepts vary and the literature is complex. Validated instruments that measure person-centred practitioner skills, and behaviours within consultations, are needed for many reasons, including in training programmes. We aimed to provide a high-level synthesis of what was expected to be a large and diverse literature through a systematic review of existing reviews of validation studies a of instruments that measure person-centred practitioner skills and behaviours in consultations. The objectives were to undertake a critical appraisal of these reviews, and to summarise the available validated instruments and the evidence underpinning them.MethodsA systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL was conducted in September 2020. Systematic reviews of validation studies of instruments measuring individual practitioner person-centred consultation skills or behaviours which report measurement properties were included. Review quality was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. Details of the reviews, the included validation studies, and the instruments themselves are tabulated, including psychometric data, and a narrative overview of the reviews is provided.ResultsFour reviews were eligible for inclusion. These used different conceptualisations of person-centredness and targeted distinct, sometimes mutually exclusive, practitioners and settings. The four reviews included 68 unique validation studies examining 42 instruments, but with very few overlaps. The critical appraisal shows there is a need for improvements in the design of reviews in this area. The instruments included within these reviews have not been subject to extensive validation study.DiscussionThere are many instruments available which measure person-centred skills in healthcare practitioners and this study offers a guide to what is available to researchers and research users. The most relevant and promising instruments that have already been developed, or items within them, should be further studied rigorously. Validation study of existing material is needed, not the development of new measures.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse prospective versus retrospective trial registration trends on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) and to evaluate the reasons for non-compliance with prospective registration. DESIGN:Part 1: Descriptive analysis of trial registration trends from 2006 to 2015. Part 2: Online registrant survey. PARTICIPANTS:Part 1: All interventional trials registered on ANZCTR from 2006 to 2015. Part 2: Random sample of those who had retrospectively registered a trial on ANZCTR between 2010 and 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Part 1: Proportion of prospective versus retrospective clinical trial registrations (ie, registration before versus after enrolment of the first participant) on the ANZCTR overall and by various key metrics, such as sponsor, funder, recruitment country and sample size. Part 2: Reasons for non-compliance with prospective registration and perceived usefulness of various proposed mechanisms to improve prospective registration compliance. RESULTS:Part 1: Analysis of the complete dataset of 9450 trials revealed that compliance with prospective registration increased from 48% (216 out of 446 trials) in 2006 to 63% (723/1148) in 2012 and has since plateaued at around 64%. Patterns of compliance were relatively consistent across sponsor and funder types (industry vs non-industry), type of intervention (drug vs non-drug) and size of trial (n<100, 100-500, >500). However, primary sponsors from Australia/New Zealand were almost twice as likely to register prospectively (62%; 4613/7452) compared with sponsors from other countries with a WHO Network Registry (35%; 377/1084) or sponsors from countries without a WHO Registry (29%; 230/781). Part 2: The majority (56%; 84/149) of survey respondents cited lack of awareness as a reason for not registering their study prospectively. Seventy-four per cent (111/149) stated that linking registration to ethics approval would facilitate prospective registration. CONCLUSIONS:Despite some progress, compliance with prospective registration remains suboptimal. Linking registration to ethics approval was the favoured strategy among those sampled for improving compliance.