Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
June 17, 2020Open Access

Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Authors

GTGehad Mohamed TawfikHGHoang Thi Nam GiangSGSherief Ghozy

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Cross-sectional survey reveals low protocol registration rates among systematic review authors, highlighting widespread unawareness and unwarranted fears of idea theft.

Key Points

  • To assess the awareness, perceived obstacles, and opinions of systematic review and meta-analysis authors regarding the protocol registration process.
  • Conducted a cross-sectional online survey of authors who published systematic reviews or meta-analyses indexed in Scopus between 2010 and 2016.
  • Identified and contacted eligible authors via email, successfully delivering 6,650 invitations.
  • Analyzed responses from 270 authors who provided complete questionnaire data.
  • PROSPERO was the primary registry used by authors (71.3%), with 99.1% reporting approval times under one month.
  • Overall, 44.2% of respondents did not register their protocols prior to publication, with lack of awareness regarding its necessity or importance cited as the primary reason (44.9%).
  • While 37.4% of authors expressed concern that registration could lead to idea theft, only 5.3% reported experiencing theft; 72.9% agreed registries prevent review duplication, and 37.4% supported mandatory registration.

Cite This Study

Tawfik et al. (2020) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7220a4abc331a85807b63ahttps://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-18841/v2
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. 1Contemporary practices in scoping review protocol registration: a meta-research analysis of high-impact health journals (2024–2025)2026
  2. 2Inconsistencies are common between non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their protocols registered in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) but were seldom explained2020
  3. 3Reporting completeness and outcomes of the diet- and nutrition-related systematic review planning process: protocol for a meta-epidemiological study2026
  4. 4Author adherence and experiences with PRISMA-P 2015: a cross-sectional study2026
  5. 5What evidence syntheses reveal about PROSPERO, INPLASY, OSF, the Research Registry, and protocols.io: a meta-research study2026 · 4 citations