Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

• Published in: Journal of clinical epidemiology Vol. 93; pp. 45 - 55
• Main Authors: Ge, Long, Tian, Jin-hui, Li, Ya-nan, Pan, Jia-xue, Li, Ge, Wei, Dang, Xing, Xin, Pan, Bei, Chen, Yao-long, Song, Fu-jian, Yang, Ke-hu
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-01-2018; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Bias; Clinical trials; Collaboration; Confidence intervals; Epidemiology; Literature reviews; Meta-epidemiological study; Objectives; PRISMA; Prospective registration; Quality; R-AMSTAR; Random numbers; Registration; Regression analysis; Research methodology; Reviews; Sensitivity analysis; Statistical analysis; Statistical significance; Studies; Systematic review; Systematic reviews; Systematic reviews; PRISMA; Meta-epidemiological study; Quality; R-AMSTAR; Prospective registration
• ISSN: 0895-4356; 1878-5921
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.012

The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in main characteristics, reporting and methodological quality between prospectively registered and nonregistered systematic reviews.
PubMed was searched to identify systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials published in 2015 in English. After title and abstract screening, potentially relevant reviews were divided into three groups: registered non-Cochrane reviews, Cochrane reviews, and nonregistered reviews. For each group, random number tables were generated in Microsoft Excel, and the first 50 eligible studies from each group were randomly selected. Data of interest from systematic reviews were extracted. Regression analyses were conducted to explore the association between total Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review (R-AMSTAR) or Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) scores and the selected characteristics of systematic reviews.
The conducting and reporting of literature search in registered reviews were superior to nonregistered reviews. Differences in 9 of the 11 R-AMSTAR items were statistically significant between registered and nonregistered reviews. The total R-AMSTAR score of registered reviews was higher than nonregistered reviews [mean difference (MD) = 4.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.70, 5.94]. Sensitivity analysis by excluding the registration-related item presented similar result (MD = 4.34, 95% CI: 3.28, 5.40). Total PRISMA scores of registered reviews were significantly higher than nonregistered reviews (all reviews: MD = 1.47, 95% CI: 0.64-2.30; non-Cochrane reviews: MD = 1.49, 95% CI: 0.56-2.42). However, the difference in the total PRISMA score was no longer statistically significant after excluding the item related to registration (item 5). Regression analyses showed similar results.
Prospective registration may at least indirectly improve the overall methodological quality of systematic reviews, although its impact on the overall reporting quality was not significant.