↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating characteristics of PROSPERO records as predictors of eventual publication of non-Cochrane systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0709-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan Ruano, Francisco Gómez-García, Jesús Gay-Mimbrera, Macarena Aguilar-Luque, José Luis Fernández-Rueda, Jesús Fernández-Chaichio, Patricia Alcalde-Mellado, Pedro J. Carmona-Fernandez, Juan Luis Sanz-Cabanillas, Isabel Viguera-Guerra, Francisco Franco-García, Manuel Cárdenas-Aranzana, José Luis Hernández Romero, Marcelino Gonzalez-Padilla, Beatriz Isla-Tejera, Antonio Velez Garcia-Nieto

Abstract

Epidemiology and the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are well known. However, no study has analyzed the influence of protocol features on the probability that a study's results will be finally reported, thereby indirectly assessing the reporting bias of International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registration records. The objective of this study is to explore which factors are associated with a higher probability that results derived from a non-Cochrane PROSPERO registration record for a systematic review will be finally reported as an original article in a scientific journal. The PROSPERO repository will be web scraped to automatically and iteratively obtain all completed non-Cochrane registration records stored from February 2011 to December 2017. Downloaded records will be screened, and those with less than 90% fulfilled or are duplicated (i.e., those sharing titles and reviewers) will be excluded. Manual and human-supervised automatic methods will be used for data extraction, depending on the data source (fields of PROSPERO registration records, bibliometric databases, etc.). Records will be classified into published, discontinued, and abandoned review subgroups. All articles derived from published reviews will be obtained through multiple parallel searches using the full protocol "title" and/or "list reviewers" in MEDLINE/PubMed databases and Google Scholar. Reviewer, author, article, and journal metadata will be obtained using different sources. R and Python programming and analysis languages will be used to describe the datasets; perform text mining, machine learning, and deep learning analyses; and visualize the data. We will report the study according to the recommendations for meta-epidemiological studies adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for SRs and MAs. This meta-epidemiological study will explore, for the first time, characteristics of PROSPERO records that may be associated with the publication of a completed systematic review. The evidence may help to improve review workflow performance in terms of research topic selection, decision-making regarding team selection, planning relationships with funding sources, implementing literature search strategies, and efficient data extraction and analysis. We expect to make our results, datasets, and R and Python code scripts publicly available during the third quarter of 2018.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 20%
Psychology 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Computer Science 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 21 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2018.
All research outputs
#15,213,229
of 25,830,657 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,551
of 2,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,005
of 350,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#44
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,830,657 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.