Download PDFPDF

Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Figure clarification and data correction from the authors
    • Kathryn A. Kaiser, Assistant Professor University of Alabama at Birmingham
    • Other Contributors:
      • Andrew W. Brown, Assistant Professor

    Readers of our article have indicated that the description of Figure 1 was insufficient to help them understand what it represents. Below, we further describe the figure, correct two minor errors, and provide a summary table.

    Figure 1 description:
    Figure 1 was designed to show two overarching pieces of information. First, the line plots allow the reader to see how the filtering process progresses for individual studies. Each line represents a single study going from one phase to the next. Each phase is centered on the midpoint of the range, giving it a Buchner funnel-like shape. The purpose of this representation, as opposed to having the x-axis anchored to 0 for instance, is that it better highlights the rank changes across phases. Just because a study has a large number of papers at one phase does not mean that it will have the largest number included at a subsequent phase, and this difference can sometimes be pronounced (as evidenced by steeply crossing lines).The second piece of information was summary statistics represented in boxplots overlaid at each phase, which are more self-explanatory.

    Figure 1 data processing:
    For the lineplots, four studies were excluded because their values were greater than 2.5 standard deviations above the mean for the ‘Total N Found’ variable. Had these four studies been plotted, all other lines would have been compressed to the left of the figure because of how far these four values would have extended the axis...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.