Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research

David Blanco et al. BMJ Open. 2019.

Abstract

Objectives: The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far.

Design: Scoping review.

Search strategy: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

Results: 109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript.

Conclusions: This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.

Keywords: adherence; completeness of reporting; knowledge synthesis; quality of reporting; reporting guidelines; scoping review.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: DA and DM are directors of the UK and Canadian EQUATOR Centres, respectively. IB is deputy director of French EQUATOR Centre.

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Typology of interventions to improve adherence to RGs according to type of intervention and research stage. Evaluated interventions are shown in bold. CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; RGs, reporting guidelines.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to RGs. Each circle represents one intervention. Variables displayed: (1) Circle size: number of studies evaluating each intervention (bigger=more studies); (2) Circle colour: study design of those studies (blue for RCTs and green for observational studies) and (3) Circle fill: kind of RG implementation (plain for checklist and stripes for bullet points and examples). Research gaps are highlighted in red. RCTs, randomised controlled trials; RGs, reporting guidelines.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86–9. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. EQUATOR Network. Library for health research reporting. http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-researc....
    1. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, et al. . Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ 2014;348:g3804 10.1136/bmj.g3804 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332 10.1136/bmj.c332 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. . Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006;185:263–7. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources