Reporting guidelines: optimal use in preventive medicine and public health

Surveying the International Prevalence and Nature of Eating, Drinking and Swallowing Difficulties in Adults Presenting with Fibromyalgia

Fibromyalgia is a centralized pain syndrome characterized by widespread pain, fatigue, sleep and sensory issues. Fibromyalgia is present in up to 8% of the global population, disproportionally affecting females. Research acknowledges that patients with similar rheumatic/neurological disorders experience eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties. There are also anecdotal reports regarding dysphagia among the fibromyalgia community. However, there is limited research exploring these issues, with potential impact on care delivery and patient outcomes. This study investigated the nature and prevalence of dysphagia in an international sample of adults with fibromyalgia. An online cross-sectional survey design was used to gather data. Questions were adapted from a criterion-based assessment and available evidence. The survey focused on demographics, dysphagia symptoms, and symptom experiences. Results were analyzed using descriptives and correlational analysis. 1983 individuals participated (age range: 18-94), located: Australia (n = 18), Ireland (n = 63), Canada (n = 174), New Zealand (n = 253), the UK (n = 434) and the USA (n = 1024). Many eating, drinking and swallowing symptoms were reported, including food sticking in the throat during swallowing (89%), and pills taking extra effort to swallow (88%), and dry mouth (85%). This study identified previously under-explored eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties among adults with fibromyalgia. These difficulties were self-reported across age, gender, and location, highlighting the potential prevalence of these concerns among a wide range of people, despite having not been explored in depth in previous studies. Timely and accurate dysphagia identification is vital given the its' potential impact on nutrition, prognosis and quality of life. This study highlighted the importance of honoring patient experiences in fibromyalgia management while also recommending input from allied health professionals such as SLTs and dietitians to improve therapeutic relationships and clinical outcomes. As such, continued research into the cause, implications, and management of these issues beyond is required to inform and optimise future patient-centred service delivery and care provision.

Knowledge and awareness of optimal use of reporting guidelines in paediatricians: A cross-sectional study

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate pediatricians' ideas and awareness of reporting guidelines of scientific researches, as well as the use of these guidelines in routine practice.

Material and Methods

This cross-sectional survey was conducted among pediatricians working at two of the largest pediatric hospitals in Ankara. The pediatricians were asked to complete a 13-item questionnaire in Turkish about reporting guidelines and the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research internet network, and their level of knowledge, awareness, and use of these guidelines were investigated.

Results

A total of 224 physicians from both centers agreed to participate in the study (56.4% of the target population). The average age of the participants was 34±9.24 years, their median age was 31 (min-max: 24-63) years, and 71.4% were female physicians. The participants' median duration in their careers was 6 (min-max: 1-39) years and 63.8% had participated in a scientific study as a researcher. Forty-five (20%) of the participants had known about the reporting guidelines before and reported that they had most frequently heard about them via journals, congresses, and seminars. Twenty (26.6%) of these physicians had used the guidelines. Sixty-five (29%) of the participants had served as a reviewer for a scientific article, but only three (4.6%) stated that they had made use of the guidelines while reviewing the articles. Some 83.5% of the participants reported that they would like to be informed about reporting guidelines. Both centers had similar knowledge levels about the use of the guidelines.

Conclusion

The awareness and use of reporting guidelines of scientific researches by pediatricians is insufficient.

Quality of reporting web-based and non-web-based survey studies: What authors, reviewers and consumers should consider

BACKGROUND

Several influential aspects of survey research have been under-investigated and there is a lack of guidance on reporting survey studies, especially web-based projects. In this review, we aim to investigate the reporting practices and quality of both web- and non-web-based survey studies to enhance the quality of reporting medical evidence that is derived from survey studies and to maximize the efficiency of its consumption.

METHODS

Reporting practices and quality of 100 random web- and 100 random non-web-based articles published from 2004 to 2016 were assessed using the SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE (SURGE). The CHERRIES guideline was also used to assess the reporting quality of Web-based studies.

RESULTS

Our results revealed a potential gap in the reporting of many necessary checklist items in both web-based and non-web-based survey studies including development, description and testing of the questionnaire, the advertisement and administration of the questionnaire, sample representativeness and response rates, incentives, informed consent, and methods of statistical analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our findings confirm the presence of major discrepancies in reporting results of survey-based studies. This can be attributed to the lack of availability of updated universal checklists for quality of reporting standards. We have summarized our findings in a table that may serve as a roadmap for future guidelines and checklists, which will hopefully include all types and all aspects of survey research.

Weaknesses in the reporting of cross-sectional studies according to the STROBE statement: the case of metabolic syndrome in adults from Peru

INTRODUCTION

The inadequate reporting of cross-sectional studies, as in the case of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, could cause problems in the synthesis of new evidence and lead to errors in the formulation of public policies.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting quality of the articles regarding metabolic syndrome prevalence in Peruvian adults using the STROBE recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough literature search with the terms "Metabolic Syndrome", "Sindrome Metabolico" and "Peru" in MEDLINE/PubMed, LILACS, SciELO, LIPECS and BVS-Peru until December 2014. We selected those who were population-based observational studies with randomized sampling that reported prevalence of metabolic syndrome in adults aged 18 or more of both sexes. Information was analysed through the STROBE score per item and recommendation.

RESULTS

Seventeen articles were included in this study. All articles met the recommendations related to the report of the study's rationale, design, and provision of summary measures. The recommendations with the lowest scores were those related to the sensitivity analysis (8%, n= 1/17), participant flowchart (18%, n= 3/17), missing data analysis (24%, n= 4/17), and number of participants in each study phase (24%, n= 4/17).

CONCLUSION

Cross-sectional studies regarding the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in peruvian adults have an inadequate reporting on the methods and results sections. We identified a clear need to improve the quality of such studies.

A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach

In this paper, we introduce the Intervention Mapping (IM) taxonomy of behaviour change methods and its potential to be developed into a coding taxonomy. That is, although IM and its taxonomy of behaviour change methods are not in fact new, because IM was originally developed as a tool for intervention development, this potential was not immediately apparent. Second, in explaining the IM taxonomy and defining the relevant constructs, we call attention to the existence of parameters for effectiveness of methods, and explicate the related distinction between theory-based methods and practical applications and the probability that poor translation of methods may lead to erroneous conclusions as to method-effectiveness. Third, we recommend a minimal set of intervention characteristics that may be reported when intervention descriptions and evaluations are published. Specifying these characteristics can greatly enhance the quality of our meta-analyses and other literature syntheses. In conclusion, the dynamics of behaviour change are such that any taxonomy of methods of behaviour change needs to acknowledge the importance of, and provide instruments for dealing with, three conditions for effectiveness for behaviour change methods. For a behaviour change method to be effective: (1) it must target a determinant that predicts behaviour; (2) it must be able to change that determinant; (3) it must be translated into a practical application in a way that preserves the parameters for effectiveness and fits with the target population, culture, and context. Thus, taxonomies of methods of behaviour change must distinguish the specific determinants that are targeted, practical, specific applications, and the theory-based methods they embody. In addition, taxonomies should acknowledge that the lists of behaviour change methods will be used by, and should be used by, intervention developers. Ideally, the taxonomy should be readily usable for this goal; but alternatively, it should be clear how the information in the taxonomy can be used in practice. The IM taxonomy satisfies these requirements, and it would be beneficial if other taxonomies would be extended to also meet these needs.

A survey of the awareness, knowledge, policies and views of veterinary journal Editors-in-Chief on reporting guidelines for publication of research

BACKGROUND

Wider adoption of reporting guidelines by veterinary journals could improve the quality of published veterinary research. The aims of this study were to assess the knowledge and views of veterinary Editors-in-Chief on reporting guidelines, identify the policies of their journals, and determine their information needs. Editors-in-Chief of 185 journals on the contact list for the International Association of Veterinary Editors (IAVE) were surveyed in April 2012 using an online questionnaire which contained both closed and open questions.

RESULTS

The response rate was 36.8% (68/185). Thirty-six of 68 editors (52.9%) stated they knew what a reporting guideline was before receiving the questionnaire. Editors said they had found out about reporting guidelines primarily through articles in other journals, via the Internet and through their own journal. Twenty of 57 respondents (35.1%) said their journal referred to reporting guidelines in its instructions to authors. CONSORT, REFLECT, and ARRIVE were the most frequently cited. Forty-four of 68 respondents (68.2%) believed that reporting guidelines should be adopted by all refereed veterinary journals. Qualitative analysis of the open questions revealed that lack of knowledge, fear, resistance to change, and difficulty in implementation were perceived as barriers to the adoption of reporting guidelines by journals. Editors suggested that reporting guidelines be promoted through communication and education of the veterinary community, with roles for the IAVE and universities. Many respondents believed a consensus policy on guideline implementation was needed for veterinary journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Further communication and education about reporting guidelines for editors, authors and reviewers has the potential to increase their adoption by veterinary journals in the future.

Reporting adverse events in randomized controlled trials in periodontology: a systematic review

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Reporting of adverse events is of paramount importance in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to guide the implementation of new therapeutic approaches in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of adverse events reporting in RCTs published in the periodontal literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two authors (CMF and NNG) searched the PubMed and LILACS electronic databases independently and in duplicate to identify RCTs published in periodontology from 2002 to 2003 and from 2011 to 2012. Reporting quality in RCTs was assessed with reference to the 2004 CONSORT Extension for Harms checklist. Differences in adverse events reporting between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs were also determined. Cohen's kappa statistic was used to determine the extent of inter-reviewer agreement. Fischer's exact test was used to assess differences in reporting between the two samples.

RESULTS

The analysis included 246 publications. One hundred twenty-four of 990 (13%) items and 223 of 1460 (15%) items were adequately reported in publications from 2002 to 2003 and from 2011 to 2012 respectively. Three checklist topics were significantly better reported in the 2011-2012 sample; two recommendations were better reported in non-industry-funded trials in publications from both periods.

CONCLUSION

Improvement and standardization of adverse events reporting in periodontology are needed.

Assessment of the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry

BACKGROUND

Proper scientific reporting is necessary to ensure the correct interpretation of study results by readers. The main objective of this study was to assess the quality of reporting in abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry. Differences in reporting of abstracts in Cochrane and paper-based reviews were also assessed.

METHODS

The PubMed electronic database and the Cochrane database for SRs were searched on November 11, 2012, independently and in duplicate, for SRs with meta-analyses related to interventions in periodontology and implant dentistry. Assessment of the quality of reporting was performed independently and in duplicate, taking into account items related to the effect direction, numerical estimates of effect size, measures of precision, probability and consistency.

RESULTS

We initially screened 433 papers and included 146 (127 paper-based and 19 Cochrane reviews, respectively). The direction of evidence was reported in two-thirds of the abstracts while strength of evidence and measure of precision (i.e., confidence interval) were reported in less than half the selected abstracts. Measures of consistency such as I(2) statistics were reported in only 5% of the selected sample of abstracts. Cochrane abstracts reported the limitations of evidence and precision better than paper-based ones. Two items ("meta-analysis" in title and abstract, respectively), were nevertheless better reported in paper-based abstracts.

CONCLUSION

Abstracts of SRs with meta-analyses in periodontology and implant dentistry currently have no uniform standard of reporting, which may hinder readers' understanding of study outcomes.