Systematic Reviews (Jun 2023)

Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols

  • Le Huu Nhat Minh,
  • Huu-Hoai Le,
  • Gehad Mohamed Tawfik,
  • Omar Mohamed Makram,
  • Thuan Tieu,
  • Luu Lam Thang Tai,
  • Dang The Hung,
  • Van Phu Tran,
  • Karim Mohamed Shahin,
  • Ali Ahmed-Fouad Abozaid,
  • Jaffer Shah,
  • Nguyen Hai Nam,
  • Nguyen Tien Huy

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02210-8
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 1
pp. 1 – 10

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Meta-analyses are on top of the evidence-based medicine pyramid, yet many of them are not completed after they are begun. Many factors impacting the publication of meta-analysis works have been discussed, and their association with publication likelihood has been investigated. These factors include the type of systematic review, journal metrics, h-index of the corresponding author, country of the corresponding author, funding sources, and duration of publication. In our current review, we aim to investigate these various factors and their impact on the likelihood of publication. A comprehensive review of 397 registered protocols retrieved from five databases was performed to investigate the different factors that might affect the likelihood of publication. These factors include the type of systematic review, journal metrics, h-index of the corresponding author, country of the corresponding author, funding sources, and duration of publication. Results We found that corresponding authors in developed countries and English-speaking countries had higher likelihoods of publication: 206/320 (p = 0.018) and 158/236 (p = 0.006), respectively. Factors affecting publications are the countries of corresponding author (p = 0.033), whether they are from developed countries (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2–3.1, p = 0.016), from English-speaking countries (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2–2.7, p = 0.005), update status of the protocol (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.0–2.6, p = 0.033), and external funding (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.7, p = 0.025). Multivariable regression retains three variables as significant predictors for the publication of a systematic review: whether it is the corresponding author from developed countries (p = 0.013), update status of the protocol (p = 0.014), and external funding (p = 0.047). Conclusion Being on top of the evidence hierarchy, systematic review and meta-analysis are the keys to informed clinical decision-making. Updating protocol status and external funding are significant influences on their publications. More attentions should be paid to the methodological quality of this type of publication.

Keywords