MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379197641 · doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02210-8

Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols

2023· article· en· W4379197641 on OpenAlexaff
Le Huu Nhat Minh, Huu‐Hoai Le, Gehad Mohamed Tawfik, Omar Mohamed Makram, Thuan Minh Tieu, Tai Luu Lam Thang, Dang The Hung, Van Phu Tran, Karim Mohamed Shahin, Ali Ahmed‐Fouad Abozaid, Jaffer Shah, Nguyen Hai Nam, Nguyen Tien Huy

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePublication biasMeta-analysisProtocol (science)Meta-regressionIndex (typography)MEDLINESystematic reviewFamily medicineAlternative medicineInternal medicinePathologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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. Factors affecting publications are the countries of corresponding author (p = 0.033), whether they are from developed countries (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2-3.1, p = 0.016), from English-speaking countries (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2-2.7, p = 0.005), update status of the protocol (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.0-2.6, p = 0.033), and external funding (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1-2.7, p = 0.025). Multivariable regression retains three variables as significant predictors for the publication of a systematic review: whether it is the corresponding author from developed countries (p = 0.013), update status of the protocol (p = 0.014), and external funding (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Being on top of the evidence hierarchy, systematic review and meta-analysis are the keys to informed clinical decision-making. Updating protocol status and external funding are significant influences on their publications. More attentions should be paid to the methodological quality of this type of publication.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.326
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.333
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3260.333
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0280.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.017
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.792
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.212 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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