Open Medicine Endorses PROSPERO

Systematic reviews, which synthesize data from individual studies, are considered the highest level of evidence for evaluating the effectiveness of health care interventions. They inform clinical practice guidelines and are used by health policy-makers to guide key decision-making. They can point to gaps in knowledge that need to be filled by new research, and identify areas where, because of a saturation of evidence about effectiveness, new research is not needed and might even be unethical.

On 22 February 2011, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York launched PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic review protocols. The registry was developed to address the excessive duplication of systematic reviews, improve transparency and minimize reporting biases. Open Medicine endorses systematic review protocol registration at PROSPERO and encourages prospective authors toregister their review protocols on health care interventions.

One recent study estimated that 11 new systematic reviews are published every day. There is currently substantive duplication of specific topics among reviews, each of which might have slightly varied methods and quality. Although replication of research is an important aspect of the scientific method, unnecessary duplication may result in the waste of academic resources without bringing us closer to the truth.

This duplication is also an ineffective use of taxpayer dollars, particularly when such reviews are funded by public agencies. If adopted widely, PROSPERO will allow review authors to quickly familiarize themselves with ongoing reviews so that they can avoid duplication. Policy-makers will be better able to identify those questions regarding health care effectiveness that require urgent investigation, as distinct from those that are already under way.

Funders can also use the register to help identify instances of excessive duplication. PROSPERO may serve to increase the visibility of a particular review and potentially foster collaboration among various groups. Such collaboration could also expand a review group’s ability to assess evidence published in languages other than English.