Good quality systematic reviews of any study type involve good design and careful planning. To minimise the risk of bias, methods should be pre-specified in a protocol with subsequent deviations and changes from what was planned being recorded and explained in the completed review report. Transparency in conduct and reporting enables those using systematic review findings to judge the quality of a review and assess for themselves the potential impact of any deviation from what was planned initially. This chapter presents the case for systematic review protocol registration and introduces PROSPERO, an open register designed specifically for prospective registration of systematic reviews. Considerations when registering a systematic review of reviews are illustrated with examples from PROSPERO.
KeywordsPROSPERO Protocol Registration Systematic review Umbrella review
- 1.Akram Y, Copello A, Moore D. Family based interventions for substance misuse: a systematic review of systematic reviews. PROSPERO. 2014:CRD42014006834.Google Scholar
- 2.Arango J, Ellsberg M, Morton M, et al. Interventions to prevent or reduce violence against women and girls: a systematic review of reviews. PROSPERO. 2013:CRD42013004422.Google Scholar
- 3.Atkinson G, Batterham A, Ells L, et al. Systematic review of reviews on non-surgical interventions for improving symptoms of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome in adults. PROSPERO. 2013:CRD42013006052.Google Scholar
- 6.Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Syst Rev. 2013;2:4. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-4.
- 9.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD website. 2015. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk. Accessed 27 Mar 2015.
- 10.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Guidance notes for registering a systematic review protocol with PROSPERO. 2013. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/documents/Registering%20a%20review%20on%20PROSPERO%202%20Sept%202013.pdf. Accessed 27 Mar 2015.
- 11.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. 2015. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO. Accessed 27 Mar 2015.
- 12.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. Support for prospective registration of systematic reviews. 2015. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/support.asp. Accessed 28 Mar 2015.
- 14.Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). CASP checklists. 2014. http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8. Accessed 27 Mar 2015.
- 15.Dherani M, Buckner S, Pope D, et al. Preventing falls and associated mortality in older people: an umbrella review of systematic reviews. PROSPERO. 2015:CRD42015010571.Google Scholar
- 16.Dretzke J, Moore D, Turner A, et al. Systematic review and economic evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of community based non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with stable end stage COPD with hypercapnic respiratory failure. PROSPERO. 2012:CRD42012003286.Google Scholar
- 18.Ioannidis J, Greenland S, Hlatky M, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912)166–75. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8.
- 20.Liberati A, Altman D, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(6). doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.
- 21.Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. BMJ. 2013;347. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5040.
- 23.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;339:b2535.Google Scholar
- 25.Nicole Nathan N, Wolfenden L, Wiggers J, et al. Effectiveness of school-based interventions on increasing children’s consumption of vegetables and fruit: a review of reviews. PROSPERO. 2014:CRD42014013082.Google Scholar
- 27.Page M, Mckenzie J, Kirkham J, et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(10):MR000035. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2.
- 28.Plaszewski M, Bettany-Saltikov J. Effects of nonsurgical management for patients with idiopathic scoliosis: an overview of systematic reviews. PROSPERO. 2013:CRD42013003538.Google Scholar
- 32.The Campbell Collaboration. The Campbell Library. 2015. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/. Accessed 28 Mar 2015.
- 33.The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Library. 2015. http://www.cochranelibrary.com/. Accessed 28 Mar 2015.
- 34.The Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute register of titles. 2015. http://joannabriggs.org/research/registered_titles.aspx. Accessed 28 Mar 2015.
- 36.Wells G, Cameron C, Klarenbach S, et al. Clinical benefits and harms of atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia in patients inadequately managed with one or more atypical antipsychotics at recommended doses: a systematic review of reviews and network meta-analysis. PROSPERO. 2013:CRD42013005487.Google Scholar