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.
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
PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
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
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
- Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol.
Blanco D, Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Moher D, Boutron I, Cobo E. Blanco D, et al. BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 16;7(11):e017551. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017551. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 29150467 Free PMC article. Review. - State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol.
Li G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, Jin Y, Nwosu I, Levine MA, Adachi JD, Thabane L. Li G, et al. BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 29;7(3):e014749. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014749. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28360252 Free PMC article. Review. - A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research.
Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, Bantoto B, Luo C, Shams I, Shahid H, Chang Y, Sun G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, Levine MAH, Adachi JD, Thabane L. Li G, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 29;17(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017. PMID: 29287585 Free PMC article. Review. - Review article: reporting guidelines in the biomedical literature.
O'Leary JD, Crawford MW. O'Leary JD, et al. Can J Anaesth. 2013 Aug;60(8):813-21. doi: 10.1007/s12630-013-9973-z. Epub 2013 Jun 13. Can J Anaesth. 2013. PMID: 23760791 Review. - A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe JP, Wilson K, Kenny M, Warren R, Wilson C, Stelfox HT, Straus SE. Tricco AC, et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Feb 9;16:15. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016. PMID: 26857112 Free PMC article.
Cited by
- Enhancing reporting through structure: a before and after study on the effectiveness of SPIRIT-based templates to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trial protocols.
Blanco D, Donadio MVF, Cadellans-Arróniz A. Blanco D, et al. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2024 May 31;9(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s41073-024-00147-7. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2024. PMID: 38816752 Free PMC article. - The Reporting of a Disproportionality Analysis for Drug Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): Development and Statement.
Fusaroli M, Salvo F, Begaud B, AlShammari TM, Bate A, Battini V, Brueckner A, Candore G, Carnovale C, Crisafulli S, Cutroneo PM, Dolladille C, Drici MD, Faillie JL, Goldman A, Hauben M, Herdeiro MT, Mahaux O, Manlik K, Montastruc F, Noguchi Y, Norén GN, Noseda R, Onakpoya IJ, Pariente A, Poluzzi E, Salem M, Sartori D, Trinh NTH, Tuccori M, van Hunsel F, van Puijenbroek E, Raschi E, Khouri C. Fusaroli M, et al. Drug Saf. 2024 Jun;47(6):575-584. doi: 10.1007/s40264-024-01421-9. Epub 2024 May 7. Drug Saf. 2024. PMID: 38713346 Free PMC article. - Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers.
Wang P, Wolfram D, Gilbert E. Wang P, et al. PLoS One. 2024 Feb 29;19(2):e0299806. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299806. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 38421981 Free PMC article. - Seeing the random forest through the decision trees. Supporting learning health systems from histopathology with machine learning models: Challenges and opportunities.
Gonzalez R, Saha A, Campbell CJV, Nejat P, Lokker C, Norgan AP. Gonzalez R, et al. J Pathol Inform. 2023 Nov 4;15:100347. doi: 10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100347. eCollection 2024 Dec. J Pathol Inform. 2023. PMID: 38162950 Free PMC article. Review. - Consideration of overadjustment bias in guidelines and tools for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies is long overdue.
van Zwieten A, Blyth FM, Wong G, Khalatbari-Soltani S. van Zwieten A, et al. Int J Epidemiol. 2024 Feb 1;53(1):dyad174. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyad174. Int J Epidemiol. 2024. PMID: 38129959 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
- EQUATOR Network. Library for health research reporting. http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-researc....
- 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
Full Text Sources