Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Registering the Review

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Diagnostic Meta-Analysis

  • 1626 Accesses

Abstract

High-quality systematic reviews start with good design and careful planning. It is not possible to eliminate bias, but by prespecifying methods in a protocol, the risk of bias can be minimised. A publicly available protocol also provides transparency in the process. Systematic reviewing is an iterative process, so subsequent deviations and changes from what was planned may be inevitable but should be recorded and justified at the stage of review when they occur. Such 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 changes from the initial protocol. In this chapter we discuss the value of systematic review protocol registration and focus on PROSPERO, an open register designed specifically for prospective registration of systematic reviews. Examples from PROSPERO are used to illustrate considerations specific to systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Centre for reviews and dissemination. University of York. 2017. https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  2. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291:2457–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan A-W, Cronin E, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication Bias and outcome reporting Bias. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3081.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA. 2002;287:2831–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet (Lond Engl). 1999;354:1896–900.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, 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:e1000100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute. 2017. http://joannabriggs.org/. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  10. The Campbell Collaboration. Campbell collaboration: better evidence for a better world. 2017. https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  11. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane. 2017. http://www.cochrane.org/. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  12. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. Establishing a new journal for systematic review products. Syst Rev. 2012;1:1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration & explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smidt N, Rutjes AWS, Van der Windt D, Ostelo R, Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, et al. The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology. 2006;67:792–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Noel-Storr AH, McCleery JM, Richard E, Ritchie CW, Flicker L, Cullum SJ, et al. Reporting standards for studies of diagnostic test accuracy in dementia: the STARDdem initiative. Neurology. 2014;83:364–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One. 2010;5:e9810.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  19. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001419.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Tricco AC, Pham B, Brehaut J, Tetroe J, Cappelli M, Hopewell S, et al. An international survey indicated that unpublished systematic reviews exist. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:617–23.e5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, Gamble C, Higgins JP, Sterne JA, et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001666.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias—an updated review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e66844.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Tricco AC, Cogo E, Page MJ, Polisena J, Booth A, Dwan K, et al. A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;79:46–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383:166–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Moher D. The problem of duplicate systematic reviews. BMJ. 2013;347:f5040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Moher D, Booth A, Stewart L. How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO. BJOG. 2014;121:784–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Siontis KC, Hernandez-Boussard T, Ioannidis JPA. Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies. BMJ. 2013;347:f4501.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. 2017. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  29. The PME. Best practice in systematic reviews: the importance of protocols and registration. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Viergever RF, Ghersi D. The quality of registration of clinical trials. PLoS One. 2011;6:e14701.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Centre for Open Science. Open science framework. 2017. https://osf.io/jsznk/register/565fb3678c5e4a66b5582f67. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  32. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. The Lancet. 2011;377:108–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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. 2011;6:e27319.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Booth A. PROSPERO’s progress and activities 2012/13. Syst Rev. 2013;2:111.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Syst Rev. 2013;2:4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1:2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhelev Z, Garside R, Hyde C. A qualitative study into the difficulties experienced by healthcare decision makers when reading a Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy review. Syst Rev. 2013;2:32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012545.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Pennant M, Wisniewski S, Hyde C, Davenport C, Deeks JJ, Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Editorial T, editors. A tool to improve efficiency and quality in the production of protocols for Cochrane Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. 19th Cochrane Colloquium; 2011; Madrid, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  40. van Enst WA, Scholten RJ, Whiting P, Zwinderman AH, Hooft L. Meta-epidemiologic analysis indicates that MEDLINE searches are sufficient for diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1192–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Rice DB, Kloda LA, Levis B, Qi B, Kingsland E, Thombs BD. Are MEDLINE searches sufficient for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools? A review of meta-analyses. J Psychosom Res. 2016;87:7–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Preston L, Carroll C, Gardois P, Paisley S, Kaltenthaler E. Improving search efficiency for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: an exploratory study to assess the viability of limiting to MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference checking. Syst Rev. 2015;4:82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Takwoingi Y, Macaskill P. Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2:82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Glanville J, Cikalo M, Crawford F, Dozier M, McIntosh H. Handsearching did not yield additional unique FDG-PET diagnostic test accuracy studies compared with electronic searches: a preliminary investigation. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:202–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Systematic reviews data register (SRDR). 2017. https://srdr.ahrq.gov/. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  46. Barbic D, Chenkin J, Cho D, Jelic T. Point-of-care ultrasonography for the diagnosis of abscess in patients presenting with skin and soft tissue infections to the emergency department. PROSPERO 2015 CRD42015017115. www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42015017115. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  47. Smith T, Daniell A, Geere J, Toms A, Hing C. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO. 2011;CRD42011001283. www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42011001283. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  48. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Clinical tests. In: Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York: University of York; 2009. www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/index_guidance.htm. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  49. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323:157–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2013. srdta.cochrane.org. Accessed 28 June 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools for use in JBI systematic reviews: checklist for diagnostic test accuracy studies. 2016. http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  53. Riemsma R, Al M, Deshpande S, Ramos IC, Armstrong N, Lee Y-C, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of SeHCAT (Tauroselcholic [75Selenium] acid) for the investigation of bile acid malabsorption (BAM) and measurement of bile acid pool loss. PROSPERO. 2012:CRD42012001911. www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42012001911. Accessed 28 June 2018.

  54. Smith TO, Daniell H, Geere J-A, Toms AP, Hing CB. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for the detection of partial- and full-thickness rotator cuff tears in adults. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30:336–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. van Enst W, Ochodo E, Scholten RJ, Hooft L, Leeflang MM. Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:882–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the producers of PROSPERO, for permission to base this chapter on information provided on the register website. We are also grateful to Dr. Nick Meader for his advice and peer comments on the draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK

    Alison Booth

  2. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK

    Julie Jones-Diette

Authors
  1. Alison Booth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie Jones-Diette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alison Booth .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Latina, Italy

    Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Booth, A., Jones-Diette, J. (2018). Registering the Review. In: Biondi-Zoccai, G. (eds) Diagnostic Meta-Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78966-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78966-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-78965-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-78966-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation