You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 26, Issue 6
  • Delays in publishing systematic review registrations in PROSPERO are hindering transparency and may lead to research waste

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Delays in publishing systematic review registrations in PROSPERO are hindering transparency and may lead to research waste
  1. Livia Puljak
  1. Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb 10000, Croatia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Livia Puljak, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb 10000, Croatia; livia.puljak{at}unicath.hr; liviapuljak{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111474

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    PROSPERO is an international prospective registry of systematic reviews.1 Registering a systematic review prospectively is considered a good research practice for multiple reasons, including transparency of the planned methods and prevention of unnecessary duplication of effort. Solla et al 2 recently reported concerns that PROSPERO registration may not prevent double review on the same topic because the PROSPERO search engine is apparently failing in finding similar review projects.

    Another pertinent current problem of PROSPERO may hinder intended transparency and promote research waste and duplication efforts, namely, major delays in checking and publishing registrations that the PROSPERO is experiencing.1 …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors LP designed and wrote the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.