Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry

Mateus Bertolini Fernandes Dos Santos,Rafaela Bassani,Bernardo Antônio Agostini,Rafael Sarkis-Onofre,Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira

doi:10.1186/s12874-020-00939-7

Mateus Bertolini Fernandes Dos Santos, Rafaela Bassani + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-00939-7

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundThe aims of this study were to assess whether the previous registration of a systematic review (SR) is associated with the improvement of the quality of the report of SRs and whether SR registration reduced outcome reporting bias.MethodsWe performed a search in PubMed for SRs in dentistry indexed in 2017. Data related to SR registration and reporting characteristics were extracted. We analyzed if the reporting of 21 characteristics of included SRs was associated with the prospective registration of protocols or reporting of a previously established protocol. The association between prospective registering of protocols, reporting of funding and number of included studies versus outcome reporting bias was tested via multivariable logistic regression.ResultsWe included 495 SRs. One hundred and 62 (32.7%) SRs reported registering the SR protocol or working from a previously established protocol. Thirteen reporting characteristics were described statistically significant in SRs registered versus SRs that were not. Publication bias assessment and Report the number of participants showed the highest effects favoring the register (RR 1.59, CI 95% 1.19–2.12; RR 1.58, CI 95% 1.31–1.92 respectively). Moreover, Registration was not significantly linked with the articles’ reporting statistical significance (OR 0.96, CI 95% 0.49–1.90).ConclusionThere is a positive influence of previously registering a protocol in the final report quality of SRs in dentistry. However, we did not observe an association between protocol registration and reduction in outcome reporting bias.

Highlights

The aims of this study were to assess whether the previous registration of a systematic review (SR) is associated with the improvement of the quality of the report of SRs and whether SR registration reduced outcome reporting bias
We compared the completeness of reporting between SRs registered/reporting established protocols versus non-registered SRs calculating the Risk Relative (RR) with a 95% confidence interval for each characteristic
We used the reporting of statistical significance of the first outcome as a surrogate of outcome reporting bias based on a previous study [13]

Summary

Introduction

The aims of this study were to assess whether the previous registration of a systematic review (SR) is associated with the improvement of the quality of the report of SRs and whether SR registration reduced outcome reporting bias. Systematic reviews (SRs) are an important tool for health professionals that help them during decision-making processes to define a diagnostic, prevention and/or treatment of a disease, disorder and/or condition [1, 2]. The advantages of registering SR protocols could be related to preventing duplication of SRs and assessment of any outcome reporting bias, which can happen when the reported outcome is selected a posteriori, based on the results. The presence of that bias could be assess comparing the protocol and final manuscript [8, 9]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion