The authors respond:
We thank the authors1 for their interesting comments in defense of their proposed guidelines. However, we judge their remarks to be about semantics, not substance. The authors themselves have previously stated that PRISMA advocates protocol registration.2 In our view, the main issue is not whether PRISMA “demands,” “advocates,” or “requests” registration. If the guideline was adopted as standard by journal editors, the “request” would of course become a requirement, and the real question is whether this requirement makes sense. Our view, as detailed in our original commentary,3 is that it does not: this additional layer of academic bureaucracy would merely obstruct free scientific enquiry.
Bahi Takkouche
Department of Preventive Medicine
University of Santiago de Compostela
Santiago de Compostela, Spain
CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBER-ESP)
Spain
[email protected]
Guy Norman
Robens Centre for Public and Environmental Health
Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences
University of Surrey
Surrey, United Kingdom
REFERENCES
1. Moher D, Altman DG, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. PRISMA statement.
Epidemiology. 2010;22:128.
2. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols.
Lancet. 2010 Jul 12. [Epub ahead of print].
3. Takkouche B, Norman G. Meta-analysis protocol registration:
sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [but who will guard the guardians?] [commentary].
Epidemiology. 2010;21:614–615.
