Search

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. Our models of multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that two main factors impact the publication outcome: updated protocol status of the published review paper (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.0-2.8, p=0.037) and external funding (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2-3.8, p=0.01). However, corresponding authors’ location in developed countries (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 0.8-3.4, p=0.139) and English-speaking countries (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.9-2.6, p=0.1) were insignificant determinants.Conclusion: Meta-analyses continue to be on top of the evidence hierarchy, rendering them the key to informed clinical decision-making. Therefore, more attention should be paid to the methodological quality of this type of publication.

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., BMC medical research methodology, 20(1), art.no.213; 2020

BackgroundNovel coronavirus COVID-19 has caused significant global outbreaks outside China. Many countries have closed their borders with China and performed obligate protective procedures, however, this disease was still rising worldwide. In this report, we aim to identify transmission patterns from China to other countries, along with describing the disease control situation of countries.MethodsWe retrospectively collected information about infected cases with COVID-19 from WHO situation reports, official notification websites of health ministries and reliable local newspapers from each country. Descriptive and cluster analysis was performed to describe the transmission characteristics while the logistic regression test was used to estimate the risk factors for the occurrence of an infected individual with an unknown source.ResultsA total of 446 infected cases were recorded from 24 countries outside China until 12 February 2020, with the number of reported infected cases were doubled every 3.08 ± 0.35 days (range from 2.6 to 3.9). Besides the spread from China, the transmission was originated from sub-endemic countries (Japan, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, France, German). Out of 6 countries got occurrence of an infected individual with unknown source and possible potential factors contributed to this occurrence was a time of epidemic circulating, number of patients and number of clusters when the occurrence still has not happened, and notably, the unreported situation of Chinese tourists’ information.ConclusionsThe situational reports of each country about COVID-19 should be more detailed mentioning the transmissions routes with keeping contact tracing of the unknown cases to increase the control of this disease.

Background Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, authors are strongly suggested to publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. We aimed to assess awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process.Methods A cross-sectional survey study included all authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016 were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. Upon receiving their approval to join our study, an online questionnaire was sent via e-mail to each participant.Results A total of 270 authors' responses were complete and were included in the final analysis. Our results showed that PROSPERO was the most commonly used database for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and their lack of knowledge of its importance was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant proportion 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 agreed that protocol registries have a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agreed that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory.Conclusion Lack of knowledge about SR/MA protocol registration process seems to be the primary reason for not registering such protocols. Therefore, interventions for increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers would be welcome.

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.