Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
June 20, 2026BMC Medical Research MethodologyOpen Access

Contemporary practices in scoping review protocol registration: a meta-research analysis of high-impact health journals (2024–2025)

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Authors

FBFernando César Paraizo BorgesRFRaissa Tabosa FerreiraKDKevin Henrique Azevedo Duarte

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Meta-research analyzes scoping review protocol registration in high-impact health journals, highlighting variability and implications for standardization.

Key Points

  • This study evaluates contemporary practices in scoping review protocol registration across health sciences journals.
  • Empirical meta-research of scoping reviews from high-impact health journals (2024-2025)
  • Data extraction focused on protocol registration status and methodological aspects
  • Descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analyses conducted to assess registration patterns.
  • Protocol registration reported in 43.3% of scoping reviews; 5.1% published a peer-reviewed protocol.
  • Majority registered on Open Science Framework (OSF) with 483 publicly accessible.
  • Substantial heterogeneity in registration practices based on journal, publisher, and author country.

Cite This Study

Borges et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a362d32db0793dc1a535a81https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-026-02919-9
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Meta-research on key metrics of preregistered scoping reviews2026
  2. 2Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers2020
  3. 3Methodological quality of published systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies and their protocol registrations2026
  4. 4Exploring Discrepancies between Protocols and Published Scoping Reviews in Implementation Science: Protocol for a Methodological Study2025
  5. 5Inconsistencies are common between non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) but were seldom explained2020