Protocol Registration

I read with interest, the recent article in the CPCJ entitled ‘Disability caused by cleft lip and palate: a systematic review and critical valuation appraisal’. ¹

The authors have claimed to have followed the PRISMA guidelines in the methods section of the paper.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is aimed to assist reviewers in being transparent about the purpose of the review, the methodology and findings. ² THE PRISMA 2009 statement was meant to tackle poor reporting standards in systematic reviews. ² The PRISMA statement is of benefit, not only to authors but to peer reviewers, editors and others looking to use these studies. ²

In the published paper, ¹ however, there is no mention of protocol registration. The PRISMA 2020 guidelines advise that information regarding protocol registration be included in the report under ‘Other information’ after the discussion section. The information should also include the name of the register as well as the registration number. In the absence of registration, it must be stated that the review was in fact, not registered. ²

It must also be disclosed where the protocol can be accessed and in the absence of protocol preparation, such a statement must be made. ²

An explanation and description of any amendments or changes made to the registered protocol must also be provided. ²

Information on protocol registration was also a part of the PRISMA 2009 guidelines, where this was to be stated at the beginning of the methods section. ²

Essentially this involves publishing project details in advance of its commencement which enables verification of compliance upon the completion of the review. ³ Authors can register their protocols free of cost on one of many platforms available to do so. Platforms such as PROSPERO, protocols.io and OSF Registries are some such free options available to authors. ³

Another way of introducing transparency to one's work may be to utilize online repositories for data such as OSF, Figshare and Zenodo which allow users to upload documents and data which are then time-stamped, version-tracked and have a DOI. ³

Prospectively registering systematic reviews aids in reducing accidental duplication of work, increases transparency and potentially reduces bias. ⁴