The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: An international prospective register of systematic reviews

被引:927
作者
Alison Booth
Mike Clarke
Gordon Dooley
Davina Ghersi
David Moher
Mark Petticrew
Lesley Stewart
机构
[1] Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, Alcuin B Block
[2] Centre for Public Health, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast BT12 6BA, Block B, Grosvenor Road
[3] Metaxis Ltd, Elmbank Offices, Elmbank Court, Curbridge, Oxford OX29 7NT, Main Road
[4] Research Translation Branch, National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra City, ACT 2600
[5] Department of Epidemiology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9
[6] Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5
[7] Department of Social and Environmental Health Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, Keppel Street
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
PROSPERO; register; Systematic review protocol;
D O I
10.1186/2046-4053-1-2
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Following publication of the PRISMA statement, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York in England began to develop an international prospective register of systematic reviews with health-related outcomes. The objectives were to reduce unplanned duplication of reviews and provide transparency in the review process, with the aim of minimizing reporting bias.Methods: An international advisory group was formed and a consultation undertaken to establish the key items necessary for inclusion in the register and to gather views on various aspects of functionality. This article describes the development of the register, now called PROSPERO, and the process of registration.Results: PROSPERO offers free registration and free public access to a unique prospective register of systematic reviews across all areas of health from all around the world. The dedicated web-based interface is electronically searchable and available to all prospective registrants. At the moment, inclusion in PROSPERO is restricted to systematic reviews of the effects of interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions, for which there is a health-related outcome.Ideally, registration should take place before the researchers have started formal screening against inclusion criteria but reviews are eligible as long as they have not progressed beyond the point of completing data extraction.The required dataset captures the key attributes of review design as well as the administrative details necessary for registration.Submitted registration forms are checked against the scope for inclusion in PROSPERO and for clarity of content before being made publicly available on the register, rejected, or returned to the applicant for clarification.The public records include an audit trail of major changes to planned methods, details of when the review has been completed, and links to resulting publications when provided by the authors.Conclusions: There has been international support and an enthusiastic response to the principle of prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews and to the development of PROSPERO.In October 2011, PROSPERO contained 200 records of systematic reviews being undertaken in 26 countries around the world on a diverse range of interventions. © 2012 Booth et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 10 条
[1]
Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gotzsche P.C., Ioannidis J.P.A., Clarke M., Devereaux P.J., Kleijnen J., Moher D., The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration, PLoS Med, 6, (2009)
[2]
Moher D., Tetzlaff J., Altman D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, PLoS Med, 6, (2009)
[3]
Dwan K., Altman D., Cresswell L., Blundell M., Gamble C., Williamson P., Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 1, (2011)
[4]
Booth A., Clarke M., Ghersi D., Moher D., Petticrew M., Stewart L., An international registry of systematic review protocols, Lancet, 377, pp. 108-109, (2011)
[5]
Booth A., Wright K., Outhwaite H., Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases: value, content, and developments, Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 26, pp. 470-472, (2010)
[6]
Booth A., Clarke M., Ghersi D., Moher D., Petticrew M., Stewart L., Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation, PLoS ONE, 6, (2011)
[7]
Clarke M., Hopewell S., Chalmers I., Clinical trials should begin and end with systematic reviews of relevant evidence: 12 years and waiting, Lancet, 376, pp. 20-21, (2010)
[8]
Tricco A., Tetzlaff J., Sampson M., Fergusson D., Cogo E., Horsley T., Moher D., Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review, J Clin Epidemiol, 61, pp. 422-434, (2008)
[9]
Tricco A., Pham B., Brehaut J., Tetroe J., Cappelli M., Hopewell S., Lavis J., Berlin J., Moher D., An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist, J Clin Epidemiol, 62, pp. 617-623, (2009)
[10]
Moher D., Tsertsvadze A., Systematic reviews: when is an update an update?, Lancet, 367, pp. 881-882, (2006)