Characteristics, completion and publication of PROSPERO records in regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain
Publication: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Abstract
Aim: We analyzed characteristics and completion status of Systematic Reviews (SRs) about regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain relief registered in PROSPERO. Materials & methods: PROSPERO was searched on 5 January 2022. Characteristics of PROSPERO records, completion status and publication information were extracted. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched by 31 May 2022, for additional published SRs. The inconsistency of PROSPERO records' status was analyzed by comparing the most recent PROSPERO status with subsequent publication of completed SR. Time-to-publication was calculated. Results: Almost half of 174 included PROSPERO records (49%) were registered in 2021. A median of 3 (IQR: 2–4.75) authors, and a search of 4 information sources (IQR: 3–5) was planned. At first registration, 51 (29%) records had already started or completed formal screening. PROSPERO records included mostly adults (48%) undergoing trunk blocks (56%), with pain intensity (74%) as a main outcome. 147 (84%) PROSPERO records had a status “ongoing”. Yet, 71 (41%) PROSPERO records were completed SRs, published after a median of 291 days. Inconsistency in status was found in 34% of PROSPERO records. Conclusion: Despite an increase in PROSPERO registrations about regional anesthesia, most were not published, and a third had inaccurate status.
Plain language summary
What is this article about?
Systematic Reviews are considered the cornerstone for providing evidence if a treatment is effective and safe for patients. Registration of a systematic review protocol in a publicly available database, such as PROSPERO, is essential for providing transparency, avoiding duplicate, and wasteful research. Pain after surgery is still not managed well, causing patient suffering, impaired recovery, opioid dependence and development of long-term pain. Regional anesthesia provides effective relief of pain after surgery. In this study, we investigated protocols of Systematic Reviews about regional anesthesia and surgical pain relief that were registered in PROSPERO to see how authors planned to conduct their research, if planned reviews were completed and published in journals, and whether the completion status of the PROSPERO records was accurate.
What were the results?
We found an increasing number of registered protocols about regional anesthesia in PROSPERO during the last 10 years. The protocols analyzed mostly adults (48%) that received regional anesthesia of the trunk (56%). The efficacy of blocks was frequently measured with pain intensity (74%). Most protocols were not published as completed Systematic Reviews in a journal and a third had inaccurate status.
What do the results of the study mean?
Although increasingly more protocols for regional anesthesia are registered in PROSPERO, most are not published in a journal. A better system for updating PROSPERO registrations should be developed so another research group can tell if the topic is abandoned, and in such cases, take over and investigate a relevant research question.
Supplementary Material
File (supplementary data.docx)
- Download
- 30.66 KB
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic Reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann. Intern. Med. 126(5), 376–380 (1997).
2.
Finckh A, Tramèr MR. Primer: strengths and weaknesses of Meta-Analysis. Nat. Clin. Pract. Rheumatol. 4(3), 146–152 (2008).
3.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M et al. Preferred reporting items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 4(1), 1 (2015).
4.
Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, Ollenschläger G, Phillips S, Van Der Wees P. Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann. Intern. Med. 156(7), 525–531 (2012).
5.
Hollon SD, Areán PA, Craske MG et al. Development of clinical practice guidelines. Ann. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 10(1), 213–241 (2014).
6.
Van Der Wees P, Qaseem A, Kaila M et al. Prospective Systematic Review registration: perspective from the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N). Syst. Rev. 1(1), 3 (2012).
7.
Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 1(1), 2 (2012).
•• Important insights into the PROSPERO register.
8.
Pieper D, Rombey T. Where to prospectively register a Systematic Review. Syst. Rev. 11(1), 8 (2022).
•• Important insights into prospective registration of Systematic Review protocols.
9.
Andrade R, Pereira R, Weir A, Ardern CL, Espregueira-Mendes J. Zombie reviews taking over the PROSPERO Systematic Review registry. It's time to fight back! Br. J. Sports Med. 53(15), 919–921 (2019).
• Description of abandoned Systematic Review protocols in PROSPERO.
10.
Runjic E, Rombey T, Pieper D, Puljak L. Half of Systematic Reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 116, 114–121 (2019).
• Study on the status of PROSPERO records in the field of pain registered in PROSPERO and their subsequent publication.
11.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. York Publishing Services Ltd, UK (2009). www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf (Accessed: 16 December 2022).
12.
Livas C, Pandis N, Ren Y. Full-text publication of abstracts presented at European Orthodontic Society congresses. Eur. J. Orthod. 36(5), 569–575 (2014).
13.
Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct Systematic Reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open 7(2), e012545 (2017).
14.
Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Liedgens H, Hummelshoj L et al. Developing consensus on core outcome domains for assessing effectiveness in perioperative pain management: results of the PROMPT/IMI-PainCare Delphi Meeting. Pain 162(11), 2717–2736 (2021).
15.
Sari S, Kumar J, Turan A. New peripheral nerve blocks and local anesthetics. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 27(6), 733–742 (2021).
16.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M et al. Preferred reporting items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 350, g7647 (2015).
17.
PROSPERO. International prospective register of Systematic Reviews. www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#aboutregpage (Accessed: 16 December 2022).
18.
Puljak L. Delays in publishing Systematic Review registrations in PROSPERO are hindering transparency and may lead to research waste. BMJ Evid. Based Med. 26(6), e4 (2021).
19.
Puljak L. If there is only one author or only one database was searched, a study should not be called a Systematic Review. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 91, 4–5 (2017).
20.
Stevinson C, Lawlor DA. Searching multiple databases for Systematic Reviews: added value or diminishing returns? Complement. Ther. Med. 12(4), 228–232 (2004).
21.
Young T, Hopewell S. Methods for obtaining unpublished data. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2011(11), Mr000027 (2011).
22.
Paez A. Grey literature: an important resource in Systematic Reviews. J. Evid. Based Med. (2017).
23.
Cozowicz C, Poeran J, Zubizarreta N, Mazumdar M, Memtsoudis SG. Trends in the use of regional anesthesia: neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 41(1), 43–49 (2016).
24.
Pushpanathan E, Setty T, Carvalho B, Sultan P. A Systematic Review of postoperative pain outcome measurements utilised in regional anesthesia randomized controlled trials. Anesthesiol. Res. Pract. 2018, 9050239 (2018).
•• Systematic Review on the heterogeneity of pain outcomes used in regional anesthesia randomized trials.
25.
Johnston DF, Turbitt LR. Defining success in regional anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 76(S1), 40–52 (2021).
26.
Dosenovic S, Nikolic Z, Ivancev B, Jelicic Kadic A, Puljak L. Awareness and acceptability of initiative on methods, measurement, and pain assessment in clinical trials core outcome set for chronic pain among surveyed neuropathic pain authors. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 8(9), 671–683 (2019).
27.
Boric K, Boric M, Dosenovic S et al. Authors' lack of awareness and use of core outcome set on postoperative pain in children is hindering comparative effectiveness research. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 7(5), 463–470 (2018).
28.
Andersen MZ, Fonnes S, Andresen K, Rosenberg J. Most published meta-analyses were made available within two years of protocol registration. Eur. J. Integrative Med. 44, 101342 (2021).
29.
Tsujimoto H, Tsujimoto Y, Kataoka Y. Unpublished Systematic Reviews and financial support: a meta-epidemiological study. BMC Res. Notes 10(1), 703 (2017).
30.
Rombey T, Doni K, Hoffmann F, Pieper D, Allers K. More Systematic Reviews were registered in PROSPERO each year, but few records' status was up-to-date. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 117, 60–67 (2020).
• Study investigating the status of Systematic Reviews registered in PROSPERO.
31.
medRxiv. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). (Accessed: 16 December 2022). www.medrxiv.org/about/FAQ
32.
Van Der Braak K, Ghannad M, Orelio C et al. The score after 10 years of registration of Systematic Review protocols. Syst. Rev. 11(1), 191 (2022).
33.
Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting Systematic Reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLOS Med. 10(4), e1001419 (2013).
34.
Carev M. Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of randomized controlled trials evaluating regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain relief registered in PROSPERO. Diploma thesis. University of Split School of Medicine. Split, Croatia (July 2022). https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:171:226684
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2023 Becaris Publishing Limited.
History
Received: 15 July 2022
Accepted: 9 January 2023
Published online: 23 January 2023
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
Characteristics, completion and publication of PROSPERO records in regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain. (2023) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2022-0129
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- Judit Németh, Daniela Küllenberg de Gaudry, László Czina, Szimonetta Lohner, Reporting completeness and outcomes of the diet- and nutrition-related systematic review planning process: protocol for a meta-epidemiological study, BMJ Open, 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-108561, 16, 3, (e108561), (2026).
- Adérito Seixas, Prospective protocols in evidence synthesis: building transparency and accountability, Athena Health & Research Journal, 10.62741/ahrj.v3iSuppl.137, 3, Suppl, (2026).
- E. Barrett-Catton, E. P. Jones, R.B. Carlson, Effect of Citation Numbers and Team Members on the Possibility of and Time Needed to Complete Screening for Systematic and Scoping Reviews, Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 10.1080/02763869.2025.2471879, 44, 2, (119-130), (2025).
- Mariana A. Burgos, Diego Ivaldi, Gisela Oltra, Camila M. Escobar Liquitay, Luis Garegnani, Meta‐epidemiological study on the publication rate of South American countries' systematic reviews of interventions registered in PROSPERO, Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods, 10.1002/cesm.70002, 2, 9, (2024).
- Andrija Babić, Ognjen Barcot, Tomislav Visković, Frano Šarić, Aleksandar Kirkovski, Ivana Barun, Zvonimir Križanac, Roshan Arjun Ananda, Yuli Viviana Fuentes Barreiro, Narges Malih, Daiana Anne‐Marie Dimcea, Josipa Ordulj, Ishanka Weerasekara, Matteo Spezia, Marija Franka Žuljević, Jelena Šuto, Luca Tancredi, Anđela Pijuk, Susanna Sammali, Veronica Iascone, Thilo von Groote, Tina Poklepović Peričić, Livia Puljak, Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non‐Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta‐research study , Research Synthesis Methods, 10.1002/jrsm.1695, 15, 3, (430-440), (2024).