MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163661402 · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-2

The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews

2012· article· en· W2163661402 on OpenAlexaff
Alison Booth, Mike Clarke, Gordon Dooley, Davina Ghersi, David Moher, Mark Petticrew, Lesley Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineCLARITYTransparency (behavior)Plain languageInclusion (mineral)Psychological interventionSystematic reviewScope (computer science)MEDLINEFamily medicineNursingLawComputer securityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Following publication of the PRISMA statement, the UK Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York in England began to develop an international prospective register of systematic reviews with health-related outcomes. The objectives were to reduce unplanned duplication of reviews and provide transparency in the review process, with the aim of minimizing reporting bias. METHODS: An international advisory group was formed and a consultation undertaken to establish the key items necessary for inclusion in the register and to gather views on various aspects of functionality. This article describes the development of the register, now called PROSPERO, and the process of registration. RESULTS: PROSPERO offers free registration and free public access to a unique prospective register of systematic reviews across all areas of health from all around the world. The dedicated web-based interface is electronically searchable and available to all prospective registrants. At the moment, inclusion in PROSPERO is restricted to systematic reviews of the effects of interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor health conditions, for which there is a health-related outcome.Ideally, registration should take place before the researchers have started formal screening against inclusion criteria but reviews are eligible as long as they have not progressed beyond the point of completing data extraction.The required dataset captures the key attributes of review design as well as the administrative details necessary for registration.Submitted registration forms are checked against the scope for inclusion in PROSPERO and for clarity of content before being made publicly available on the register, rejected, or returned to the applicant for clarification.The public records include an audit trail of major changes to planned methods, details of when the review has been completed, and links to resulting publications when provided by the authors. CONCLUSIONS: There has been international support and an enthusiastic response to the principle of prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews and to the development of PROSPERO.In October 2011, PROSPERO contained 200 records of systematic reviews being undertaken in 26 countries around the world on a diverse range of interventions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.538
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.771
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5380.771
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.011
Bibliometrics0.0490.072
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0230.029
Open science0.0120.019
Research integrity0.0160.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.015

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.690
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.159 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1,397
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207