Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: An international consultation

52Citations
Citations of this article
108Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: In response to growing recognition of the value of prospective registration of systematic review protocols, we planned to develop a web-based open access international register. In order for the register to fulfil its aims of reducing unplanned duplication, reducing publication bias, and providing greater transparency, it was important to ensure the appropriate data were collected. We therefore undertook a consultation process with experts in the field to identify a minimum dataset for registration. Methods and Findings: A two-round electronic modified Delphi survey design was used. The international panel surveyed included experts from areas relevant to systematic review including commissioners, clinical and academic researchers, methodologists, statisticians, information specialists, journal editors and users of systematic reviews. Direct invitations to participate were sent out to 315 people in the first round and 322 in the second round. Responses to an open invitation to participate were collected separately. There were 194 (143 invited and 51 open) respondents with a 100% completion rate in the first round and 209 (169 invited and 40 open) respondents with a 91% completion rate in the second round. In the second round, 113 (54%) of the participants reported having previously taken part in the first round. Participants were asked to indicate whether a series of potential items should be designated as optional or required registration items, or should not be included in the register. After the second round, a 70% or greater agreement was reached on the designation of 30 of 36 items. Conclusions: The results of the Delphi exercise have established a dataset of 22 required items for the prospective registration of systematic reviews, and 18 optional items. The dataset captures the key attributes of review design as well as the administrative details necessary for registration. © 2011 Booth et al.

References Powered by Scopus

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

53407Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series

18108Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

12274Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

17558Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015: Elaboration and explanation

9228Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

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

899Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Booth, A., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Moher, D., Petticrew, M., & Stewart, L. (2011, November 16). Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: An international consultation. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027319

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 59

73%

Researcher 11

14%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

7%

Lecturer / Post doc 5

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 38

61%

Nursing and Health Professions 11

18%

Social Sciences 8

13%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5

8%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
References: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free