Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

doi: 10.1136/bmj.g3804.

Larissa Shamseer 2, Erica Weinstein 3, Fatemeh Yazdi 1, Lucy Turner 1, Justin Thielman 1, Douglas G Altman 4, Allison Hirst 5, John Hoey 6, Anita Palepu 7, Kenneth F Schulz 8, David Moher 9

Affiliations

Review

Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review

Adrienne Stevens et al. BMJ. 2014.

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines.

Design: Systematic review.

Data sources: Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name.

Study selection: English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals).

Data extraction: Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score.

Results: 101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15,249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations.

Conclusions: The completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence.

Systematic review registration: Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.

© Stevens et al 2014.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi\_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: all authors maintained their independence from the agency that funded this work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None

Fig 1 Schematic depicting relation among evaluation of reporting guideline, studies contained within it, and determination of comparison groups according to journal endorsement status

None

Fig 2 PRISMA flow diagram for selecting reporting guidelines for health research. RG=reporting guideline

None

Fig 3 PRISMA flow diagram for selecting evaluations of relevant reporting guidelines. RG=reporting guideline; SR=systematic review

None

Fig 4 Completeness of reporting summary plot for BMJ economics checklist, endorsing versus non-endorsing journals. Summary plots in this and other related figures were generated in Comprehensive Meta-analysis. In brief, summary effect estimates for each checklist are shown, and those estimates were previously calculated in Review Manager. For example, checklist item “economic importance of question” was assessed in only one evaluation, which had 13 studies (2 studies from endorsing journal and 11 studies from non-endorsing journals; appendix 7) that provided information on whether study had reported on that checklist item. Appendix 7 shows analyses for each checklist item conducted in Review Manager

None

Fig 5 Completeness of reporting summary plot for CONSORT extension for harms checklist, endorsing versus non-endorsing journals

None

Fig 6 Completeness of reporting summary plot for PRISMA checklist, endorsing versus non-endorsing journals. Although all evaluations assessed all items, one evaluation was excluded from analysis of two checklist items because of zero or one studies for analysis

None

Fig 7 Completeness of reporting summary plot for STARD checklist, endorsing versus non-endorsing journals. Effect estimate for checklist item “Test methods: definition of cut-offs of index test and reference standard” was not estimable during quantitative analysis because of zero events in each arm (one evaluation in analysis)

None

Fig 8 Completeness of reporting summary plot for STRICTA checklist, endorsing versus non-endorsing journals

None

Fig 9 Completeness of reporting summary plot for STROBE checklist, endorsing versus non-endorsing journals. Effect estimate for checklist item “Methods: missing data” was not estimable during quantitative analysis because of zero events in each arm

None

Fig 10 Completeness of reporting summary plot for PRISMA checklist, after versus before journal endorsement. Although all evaluations assessed all items, one evaluation was excluded from analysis of one checklist item because of zero and one studies for comparison arms

None

Fig 11 Completeness of reporting summary plot for QUOROM checklist, after versus before journal endorsement

None

Fig 12 Completeness of reporting summary plot for STARD checklist, after versus before journal endorsement

None

Fig 13 Completeness of reporting summary plot for STRICTA checklist, after versus before journal endorsement

None

Fig 14 Completeness of reporting summary plot for STROBE checklist, after versus before journal endorsement. Effect estimate for checklist item “Methods: missing data” was not estimable during quantitative analysis because of zero events in each arm

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 2005;365:1159-62. - PubMed
    1. Chan S, Bhandari M. The quality of reporting of orthopaedic randomized trials with use of a checklist for nonpharmacological therapies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:1970-8. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007;4:447-55. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith BA, Lee HJ, Lee JH, Choi M, Jones DE, Bausell RB, et al. Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the nursing literature: application of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT). Nurs Outlook 2008;56(1):31-7. - PubMed
    1. Yesupriya A, Evangelou E, Kavvoura FK, Patsopoulos NA, Clyne M, Walsh MC, et al. Reporting of Human Genome Epidemiology (HuGE) association studies: an empirical assessment. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008;8. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources