Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers (original) (raw)
Related papers
Systematic Reviews, 2012
Background: Reporting of health research is often inadequate and incomplete. Complete and transparent reporting is imperative to enable readers to assess the validity of research findings for use in healthcare and policy decision-making. To this end, many guidelines, aimed at improving the quality of health research reports, have been developed for reporting a variety of research types. Despite efforts, many reporting guidelines are underused. In order to increase their uptake, evidence of their effectiveness is important and will provide authors, peer reviewers and editors with an important resource for use and implementation of pertinent guidance. The objective of this study was to assess whether endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals influences the completeness of reporting of health studies. Methods: Guidelines providing a minimum set of items to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed with explicit methodology, and using a consensus process will be identified from an earlier systematic review and from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network's reporting guidelines library. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register and Scopus will be searched for evaluations of those reporting guidelines; relevant evaluations from the recently conducted CONSORT systematic review will also be included. Single data extraction with 10% verification of study characteristics, 20% of outcomes and complete verification of aspects of study validity will be carried out. We will include evaluations of reporting guidelines that assess the completeness of reporting: (1) before and after journal endorsement, and/or (2) between endorsing and non-endorsing journals. For a given guideline, analyses will be conducted for individual and the total sum of items. When possible, standard, pooled effects with 99% confidence intervals using random effects models will be calculated.
2014
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.
A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 2013
Background: Reporting guidelines have been available for the past 17 years since the inception of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. These guidelines were developed to improve the quality of reporting of studies in medical literature. Despite the widespread availability of these guidelines, the quality of reporting of medical literature remained suboptimal. In this study, we assess the current adherence practice to reporting guidelines; determine key factors associated with better adherence to these guidelines; and provide recommendations to enhance adherence to reporting guidelines for future studies. Methods: We undertook a systematic scoping review of systematic reviews of adherence to reporting guidelines across different clinical areas and study designs. We searched four electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline) from January 1996 to September 2012. Studies were included if they addressed adherence to one of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND), Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). A protocol for this study was devised. A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors in duplicate. This study reporting follows the PRISMA guidelines. Results: Our search retrieved 5159 titles, of which 50 were eligible. Overall, 86.0% of studies reported suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with better adherence included journal impact factor and endorsement of guidelines, publication date, funding source, multisite studies, pharmacological interventions and larger studies. Conclusion: Reporting guidelines in the clinical literature are important to improve the standards of reporting of clinical studies; however, adherence to these guidelines remains suboptimal. Action is therefore needed to enhance the adherence to these standards. Strategies to enhance adherence include journal editorial policies endorsing these guidelines.
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Background: From 2005 to 2010, we conducted 2 randomized studies on a journal (Medicina Clínica), where we took manuscripts received for publication and randomly assigned them to either the standard editorial process or to additional processes. Both studies were based on the use of methodological reviewers and reporting guidelines (RG). Those interventions slightly improved the items reported on the Manuscript Quality Assessment Instrument (MQAI), which assesses the quality of the research report. However, masked evaluators were able to guess the allocated group in 62% (56/90) of the papers, thus presenting a risk of detection bias. In this post-hoc study, we analyse whether those interventions that were originally designed for improving the completeness of manuscript reporting may have had an effect on the number of citations, which is the measured outcome that we used. Methods: Masked to the intervention group, one of us used the Web of Science (WoS) to quantify the number of citations that the participating manuscripts received up December 2016. We calculated the mean citation ratio between intervention arms and then quantified the uncertainty of it by means of the Jackknife method, which avoids assumptions about the distribution shape. Results: Our study included 191 articles (99 and 92, respectively) from the two previous studies, which all together received 1336 citations. In both studies, the groups subjected to additional processes showed higher averages, standard deviations and annual rates. The intervention effect was similar in both studies, with a combined estimate of a 43% (95% CI: 3 to 98%) increase in the number of citations. Conclusions: We interpret that those effects are driven mainly by introducing into the editorial process a senior methodologist to find missing RG items. Those results are promising, but not definitive due to the exploratory nature of the study and some important caveats such as: the limitations of using the number of citations as a measure of scientific impact; and the fact that our study is based on a single journal. We invite journals to perform their own studies to ascertain whether or not scientific repercussion is increased by adhering to reporting guidelines and further involving statisticians in the editorial process.
Reporting Standards for Publishing Research
Improving reporting practices in research publications has been an important issue in the 21 st century in such fields as education, medicine, and psychology. Professionals in these fields have argued that reporting practices should facilitate transparency and replication, two important qualities in research reports. Some organizations have developed standards for reporting research to facilitate the preparation of reports, the review of such reports by publishers and other researchers, and the interpretation of results by practitioners. The objective is to provide sufficient information to assess the contribution of the published research. This paper describes several of the initiatives developed to improve research reporting. 4 Running head: REPORTING STANDARDS In the heath field, several organizations have developed reporting standards for publishing research studies. Among them, a group of scientists and editors, the CONSORT group (an acronym for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), has developed reporting standards to improve the quality of reporting of randomized trials. CONSORT first published reporting standards in a 1996 in a statement that comprises a checklist and a flowchart. The statement has been revised several times and actually is published as the CONSORT 2010 statement (Schulz, Altman, Moher, CONSORT Group, 2010). The checklist contains 25 items related with content. These items were selected based on empirical evidence, which indicates that this information is necessary to judge the reliability of the study and the relevance of the findings. The flowchart is used to show the number of participants in each stage of a trial, hence, allowing the reader to judge if an intention-to-treat analysis was performed. The use of CONSORT reporting standards is required by leading health related journals and endorsed by major international editorial groups. Another initiative to improve research reporting practices in the health field is called Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND), developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to compliment the CONSORT initiative. The TREND statement contains a checklist developed to guide standardized reporting of nonrandomized controlled trials. Like the CONSORT statement, the purpose is to promote transparency in reporting to improve research synthesis, and increase evidence-based decision making (Des Jarlais, Lyles, Crepaz, & the TREND, 2004). The TREND Statement is expected to be used as a guide for designing evaluation studies, reporting results, and reviewing reports for publication. In addition, the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement is an international, collaborative initiative with the aim of improving 5 Running head: REPORTING STANDARDS the conduct and dissemination of observational studies (von Elm et al. 2008). The STROBE statement comprises a checklist for each of the three main observational designs; cohort, casecontrol, and cross-sectional. In addition to the CONSORT, TREND, and STROBE initiatives, other health organizations are dedicated to promoting the implementation of research reporting standards. Some of these health organizations operates at the international level, like the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network, which provides free online resources, education and training activities, and support to develop reporting guidelines (Simera et al., 2010). In the psychology field, APA published the aforementioned APA Manual to assist researchers in the preparation of articles to be published in its journals. APA has been developing standards for reporting research studies since the first edition published in 1952, although reporting standards were not highlighted in past editions until the sixth edition Initiative. (2008). The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(4), 344-349.
International Journal of Morphology, 2020
Research reporting statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists and scales can improve quality of reporting results in biomedical research. The aim of this study was to describe statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists and scales available for reporting results and quality of conduct in biomedical research. Systematic review. All types statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists and scales generated to improve the quality of the biomedical research results report were included. Data sources: EMBASE, HINARI, MEDLINE and Redalyc; in the libraries BIREME-BVS, SciELO and The Cochrane Library; in the meta-searchers Clinical Evidence and TRIP Database; and on the Websites of EQUATOR Network, BMC Medical Education and EUROPE PMC were used. The recovered documents were grouped as study design related to systematic reviews (SR) meta-analysis and meta-reviews, CT and RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, clinical practice guidelines; biological material, animal and preclinical studies; qualitative studies; economic evaluation and decision analysis studies; and methodological quality (MQ) scales). The 93 documents were obtained.