Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is of critical importance in dermatology because of their key role in informing health care decisions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. METHODS: This review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Included studies were reviews published across 6 years in the top 4 highest-impact-factor dermatology journals of 2017. Records and full texts were screened independently. Data analysis was conducted with univariate multivariable linear regression. The primary outcome was to assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: A total of 166 studies were included and mean PRISMA compliance across all articles was 73%. Compliance significantly improved over time (ß = .016; P = <.001). The worst reported checklist item was item 5 (reporting on protocol existence), with a compliance of 15% of articles. CONCLUSION: PRISMA compliance within leading dermatology journals could be improved; however, it is steadily improving.

Surveying opinions of 149 registrants to the Research Registry: Awareness of and attitudes towards research registration.

BACKGROUND: Research registration is an important ethical principle in the Declaration of Helsinki, however, progress to increase registration has been slow. Understanding the attitudes of users towards registries may provide insights into increase research registration. In this survey-based study, we sought to gain insight from users of a single global research registry, the Research Registry® (www.researchregistry.com). METHODS: A Google Forms survey was created and emailed to all users of the Research Registry® (n = 1432). Multiple choice and free-text answers were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis respectively. RESULTS: From 925 contactable registrations, 149 (16.1%) completed the survey. The most commonly registered study type was retrospective cohort (32.2%). 23 registrations (15.4%) were made during the planning or conception of the study, whereas 67 (45.0%) registered at the time of journal submission, or during the peer review process. Of those that declared whether they had performed unregistered research or not, 51 (45.5%) participants had previously performed unregistered research. Registrants were most commonly made aware of the Research Registry® through submission to the International Journal of Surgery (IJS) family of journals (n = 57, 47.5%). Survey participants identified the most important features of registration to be its convenience, including the ease, time and cost of registration. Thematic analysis revealed the most common motive for registration to be as a mandatory requirement of journal submission, and that registration can be improved by simplification of the registration process. CONCLUSION: Registries must focus on engaging their network of users to ensure that research registration is a dynamic process. They need to adopt a user-centered and agile approach to their development, with a strong focus on "customer service". Moreover, by working in partnership with journals, it is possible to improve compliance with registration.