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

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.

A Review of the In Vitro Inhibition of α-Amylase and α-Glucosidase by Chalcone Derivatives.

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic metabolic disease relating to steady hyperglycemia resulting from the impairment of the endocrine and non-endocrine systems. Many new drugs having varied targets were discovered to treat this disease, especially type 2 diabetes. Among those, α-glucosidase inhibitors showed their effects by preventing the digestion of carbohydrates through their inhibition against α-amylase and α-glucosidase. Recently, chalcones have attracted considerable attention as they have a simple structure, are easily synthesized as well as have a variety of derivatives. Some reports suggested that chalcone and its derivates could inhibit α-amylase and α-glucosidase. This narrative review provides a comprehensive evaluation of the inhibition of chalcone and its derivatives against α-amylase and α-glucosidase that were reviewed and reported in published scientific articles. Twenty-eight articles were reviewed after screening 207 articles found in four databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, VHL (Virtual Health Library), and GHL (Global Health Library). This review presented the inhibitory effects of varied chalcones, including chalcones with a basic structural framework, azachalcones, bis-chalcones, chalcone oximes, coumarin-chalcones, cyclohexane chalcones, dihydrochalcones, and flavanone-coupled chalcones. Many of these chalcones had significant inhibition against α-amylase as well as α-glucosidase that were comparable to or even stronger than standard inhibitors. This suggested that such compounds could be potential candidates for the discovery of new anti-diabetic remedies in the years to come.

The association between dengue viremia kinetics and dengue severity: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

In this study, we aim to assess the association of dengue viremia with dengue severity. The study protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016039864). We searched nine databases to find potential papers. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were included. We, based our analysis on three outcomes which are disease severity, dengue serotype and disease infection type. Thirty studies with 3316 patients were included. Our analysis revealed that viremia is significantly higher in dengue hemorrhagic fever patients than dengue fever in days 5 to 6. Regarding the serotype of dengue, the maximum viremia titre of serotype 1 was significantly higher than serotype 3 and the viremia in dengue serotype 2 was significantly higher than serotype 4 in days 2 to 4. However, comparison of the daily viremia level between the primary and secondary dengue infection revealed that secondary infection was significantly higher than the primary infection on seventh day and on the eighth day. Viremia is strongly associated with disease severity and type of infection which gave viremia a high indicative power to be used as a clinical predictor. Dengue serotype is also associated with viral load with higher viremia in DENV-2/1.

Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers.

BACKGROUND: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, it is highly recommended that authors publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. our aim was to assess the awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study included the authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016, and they were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. An online questionnaire was sent to each participant via e-mail after receiving their approval to join the study. We have sent 6650 emails and received 275 responses. RESULTS: A total of 270 authors responses were complete and included in the final analysis. Our results has shown that PROSPERO was the most common database used for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance time interval in PROSPERO was less than 1 month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and according to their opinion that the other authors lack knowledge of protocol importance and mandance to be registered, was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant percenatge of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants have agreed that protocol registries play a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agree that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. CONCLUSION: About half of the participants believes that the main reason for not registering protocols, is that the other authors lack knowledge concerning obligation and importance to register the SR/MA protocols in advance. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.