Prospective protocols in evidence synthesis: building transparency and accountability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62741/ahrj.v3iSuppl.137Keywords:
Evidence synthesis, Review protocol, Prospective registration, Transparency, AccountabilityAbstract
As systematic and scoping reviews have become fundamental tools for evidence-based decision-making in healthcare and policy, ensuring their transparency and rigor has grown increasingly critical. The prospective publication of review protocols represents a key mechanism for achieving these goals but remains underutilized despite the evidence of its benefits. This editorial examines why protocol publication matters and addresses the practical concerns that have limited widespread adoption.
References
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. 2015;349 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647
Rombey T, Allers K, Mathes T, Hoffmann F, Pieper D. A descriptive analysis of the characteristics and the peer review process of systematic review protocols published in an open peer review journal from 2012 to 2017. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2019;19(1):57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0698-8
O'Mahony A, Haseldine C, Albers B, et al. Exploring Discrepancies between Protocols and Published Scoping Reviews in Implementation Science: Protocol for a Methodological Study. HRB Open Research. 2025;8:95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.14158.1
Jesus TS. Rigour and transparency in the family of systematic reviews: The International Journal of Health Planning and Management encourages prospective protocol registration. Int. J. Health Plan. Manag. 2022;37(5):2523–2527. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3510
Peters MD, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI evidence synth. 2020;18(10):2119–2126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
Iannizzi C, Akl EA, Kahale LA, et al. Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review protocol. F1000Research. 2021;10:802. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.55108.1
Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al. Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI evidence synth. 2022;20(4):953–968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00242
Allers K, Hoffmann F, Mathes T, Pieper D. Systematic reviews with published protocols compared to those without: more effort, older search. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2018;95:102–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.005
van der Braak K, Ghannad M, Orelio C, et al. The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols. Syst. Rev. 2022;11(1):191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02053-9
Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. Implementing PRISMA-P: recommendations for prospective authors. Syst Rev. Jan 28 2016;5:15. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0191-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0191-y
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018;169(7):467–473. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B., Jordan, Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01
Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018;18(1):143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2016;16(1):15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4
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. 2019;53(15):919–921. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098252
Carev M, Čivljak M, Puljak L, Došenović S. Characteristics, completion and publication of PROSPERO records in regional anesthesia for acute perioperative pain. J. Comp. Eff. Res. 2023;12(3):e220129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2022-0129
Tawfik GM, Giang HTN, Ghozy S, et al. Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2020/08/25 2020;20(1):213. doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01094-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01094-9
Woo BFY, Tam WWS, Williams MY, et al. Characteristics, methodological, and reporting quality of scoping reviews published in nursing journals: A systematic review. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2023;55(4):874–885. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12861
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Stevens A, Garritty C, Hersi M, Moher D. Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies (Protocol). Equator Network. 2018:1–12.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 11-02-2026 (3)
- 11-02-2026 (2)
- 10-02-2026 (1)
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Athena Health & Research Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright of published papers is assigned to the Journal, but all content is licensed under the terms of Creative Commons Non-comercial 4.0 International License. Thus users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
