Reporting quality of surgical randomised controlled trials in head and neck cancer: a systematic review

Are reporting guidelines used in infectious diseases publications? An analysis of more than 1,000 articles

Objective

To assess whether 16 reporting guidelines of Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) were used in infectious diseases research publications.

Design

This cross-sectional, audit-type study assessed articles published in five infectious diseases journals in 2019.

Methods

All articles were manually reviewed to assess if a reporting guideline was advisable and searched for the names and acronyms of 16 reporting guidelines. An "advisable use rate" was calculated.

Results

We reviewed 1,251 manuscripts across five infectious diseases journals. Guideline use was advisable for 973 (75%) articles. Reporting guidelines were used in 85 articles, 6.1% of total articles, and 8% (95% CI 6%-9%) of articles for which guidelines were advised. The advisable use rate ranged from 0.06 to 0.17 for any guideline, 0-0.08 for CONSORT, 0.53-1 for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and 0-0.66 for Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) : The TRIPOD statement. No trends were observed across the five journals.

Conclusions

The use of EQUATOR-related reporting guidelines is infrequent, despite journals and publishers promoting their usage. Whether this finding is attributable to knowledge, acceptance, or perceived usefulness of the guidelines still needs to be clarified.

Methods and results of studies on reporting guideline adherence are poorly reported: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVES

We investigated recent meta-research studies on adherence to four reporting guidelines to determine the proportion that provided (1) an explanation for how adherence to guideline items was rated and (2) results from all included individual studies. We examined conclusions of each meta-research study to evaluate possible repetitive and similar findings.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional meta-research study. MEDLINE (Ovid) was searched on July 5, 2022 for studies that used any version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, or Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines or their extensions to evaluate reporting.

RESULTS

Of 148 included meta-research studies published between August 2020 and June 2022, 14 (10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6%-15%) provided a fully replicable explanation of how they coded the adherence ratings and 49 (33%, 95% CI 26%-41%) completely reported individual study results. Of 90 studies that classified reporting as adequate or inadequate in the study abstract, six (7%, 95% CI 3%-14%) concluded that reporting was adequate, but none of those six studies provided information on how items were coded or provided item-level results for included studies.

CONCLUSION

Almost all included meta-research studies found that reporting in health research is suboptimal. However, few of these reported enough information for verification or replication.

Evaluating the completeness of the reporting of abstracts since the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts: an evaluation of randomized controlled trial in ten nursing journals

BACKGROUND

As a practice-oriented discipline, strict adherence to reporting guidelines is particularly important in randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts of the nursing area. However, whether abstract reports after 2010 have complied with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) guideline is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether the publication of CONSORT-A has improved abstract reporting in nursing and explores the factors associated with better adherence to the guidelines.

METHODS

We searched the Web of Science for 200 RCTs randomly selected from ten nursing journals. We used a data extraction form based on CONSORT-A, including 16 items, to analyze the reporting adherence to the guidelines, and the reporting rate of each item and the total score for each abstract were used to indicate adherence and overall quality score (OQS, range 0-16). A comparison of the total mean score between the two periods was made, and affecting factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the studies we included, 48 abstracts were published pre-CONSORT-A whereas 152 post-CONSORT-A. The overall mean score for reporting adherence to 16 items was 7.41 ± 2.78 and 9.16 ± 2.76 for pre- and post-CONSORT-A, respectively (total score: 16). The most poorly reported items are "harms (0%)," "outcomes in method (8.5%)," "randomization (25%)," and "blinding (6.5%)." Items including the year of publication, impact factor, multiple center trial, word count, and structured abstract are significantly associated with higher adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

The adherence to abstract reporting in nursing literature has improved since the CONSORT-A era, but the overall completeness of RCT abstracts remained low. A joint effort by authors, editors, and journals is necessary to improve reporting quality of RCT abstracts.

Keys for successful publication in Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis: A STROBE analysis of peer reviews of articles submitted in 2020-2021

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate reviewing and editorial decision for articles submitted to the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made of reviewers' comments on 1,133 scientific articles (700 original articles, 96 literature reviews, and 337 case reports), originating from 69 countries, consecutively submitted on-line between January 1st, 2020 and December 31st, 2021. The main objective was to document the acceptance rate and decision time. Accessory objectives were to synthesize the main comments and to screen for correlations between acceptance and the main characteristics of first authors, articles and reviewers' comments.

RESULTS

In total, 4.1% of submitted articles were accepted. Median decision time differed significantly (P<0.0001), at 1 month in case of refusal and 4 months in case of acceptance. Reviewers mentioned failure to adhere to the journal's authors' guide, to use the appropriate EQUATOR guidelines and to adopt the recommended P<0.005 significance threshold in 94.8%, 54.2%, and 39.9% of cases, respectively. On multivariate analysis, 3 variables significantly impacted acceptance, which increased from 1.3% to 44.6% (P<0.0001) when an appropriate EQUATOR guideline was used and from 0.3% to 57.4% (P<0.0001) when the significance threshold was set at P<0.005, and decreased from 10.5% to 1.1% (P=0.0001) when the article did not originate from a French-speaking country (member of the Francophonie organization).

CONCLUSION

Adhesion to modern scientific medical writing rules increased acceptance rates for articles in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases. Teaching modern scientific medical writing needs to be enhanced in otorhinolaryngology.

Evaluation of reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding patients with COVID-19 and analyse the influence factors.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs regarding patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from the inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement was used to evaluate the overall reporting quality of these RCTs.

RESULTS

53 RCTs were included. The study showed that the average reporting rate for 37 items in CONSORT checklist was 53.85% with mean overall adherence score of 13.02±3.546 (ranged: 7 to 22). The multivariate linear regression analysis showed the overall adherence score to the CONSORT guideline was associated with journal impact factor (P = 0.006), and endorsement of CONSORT statement (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Although many RCTs of COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall reporting quality of these articles was suboptimal, it can not provide valid evidence for clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. Therefore, more journals should endorse the CONSORT statement, authors should strictly follow the relevant provisions of the CONSORT guideline when reporting articles. Future RCTs should particularly focus on improvement of detailed reporting in allocation concealment, blinding and estimation of sample size.