Reporting clinical research: guidance to encourage accurate and transparent research reporting

Publication Bias and Selective Outcome Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials Related to Rehabilitation: A Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the rate of registered protocols published as research papers as a measure of publication bias, and the concordance rates of the primary outcomes between research protocol and published papers as a measure of selective outcome reporting bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to rehabilitation.

DATA SOURCES

Protocols related to RCTs were extracted from electronic databases, the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN), International Standard Research Clinical Trial Number (ISRCTN), ClinicalTrials.gov, and MEDLINE. Published papers were retrieved from MEDLINE.

STUDY SELECTION

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) initial registration (UMIN, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov) within the designated period; (2) published as a paper from a research protocol in MEDLINE (PubMed); and (3) written in English or Japanese. The search period was from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020.

DATA EXTRACTION

The outcome of this study was set as the rate of published papers that were consistent with the extracted research protocol and the concordance rate between the primary outcomes in published papers and in protocols. The concordance rate of the primary outcomes was evaluated by checking whether the description in the research protocol matched that in the paper's abstract and main text.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Out of the 5597 research protocols registered, only 727 were published (13.0%). The concordance rates of the primary outcomes were 48.7% and 72.6% in the abstract and main text, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed major discrepancies between the number of research protocols and published papers, and difference of description regarding the primary outcomes in published papers which were already defined in the research protocols.

Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines

Objective

Complete, accurate reporting of systematic reviews facilitates assessment of how well reviews have been conducted. The primary objective of this study was to examine compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for literature search reporting and to examine the completeness, bias, and reproducibility of the searches in these reviews from what was reported. The second objective was to examine reporting of the credentials and contributions of those involved in the search process.

Methods

A sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in veterinary journals between 2011 and 2015 was obtained by searching PubMed. Reporting in the full text of each review was checked against certain PRISMA checklist items.

Results

Over one-third of reviews (37%) did not search the CAB Abstracts database, and 9% of reviews searched only 1 database. Over two-thirds of reviews (65%) did not report any search for grey literature or stated that they excluded grey literature. The majority of reviews (95%) did not report a reproducible search strategy.

Conclusions

Most reviews had significant deficiencies in reporting the search process that raise questions about how these searches were conducted and ultimately cast serious doubts on the validity and reliability of reviews based on a potentially biased and incomplete body of literature. These deficiencies also highlight the need for veterinary journal editors and publishers to be more rigorous in requiring adherence to PRISMA guidelines and to encourage veterinary researchers to include librarians or information specialists on systematic review teams to improve the quality and reporting of searches.

Evaluation of observational research reports published in Turkish nursing journals

AIM

The aim of this literature-based descriptive study was to examine the reporting of the observational research studies published in peer-reviewed nursing journals in Turkey.

METHODS

Eleven peer-reviewed nursing journals printed on a regular basis in Turkey between 2007 and 2012 were selected. These journals were searched for observational research studies, and 502 studies were selected and examined by using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement.

RESULTS

Of the 502 studies, 495 were cross-sectional, 3 were cohort, and 4 were case controlled. Summary and introduction and aim sections were sufficient in most of the studies. The methods sections of the reports were mostly not reported: 64.3% of the reports did not indicate eligibility/inclusion criteria; sampling method, 67.0%; possible sources of bias, 99.2%; ways to reach sample size, 92.6%. In the results section, the number of individuals participating in each stage of the studies (44.0%) and in other analyses made (39.2%) was not reported. In the discussion section, a main comment about research findings was partly made (97.4%), and limitations of the studies and possible sources of bias were not written in 99.0% of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This study clearly revealed that the observational research studies published in nursing journals in Turkey did not fulfil the important criteria and needed to be improved.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND HEALTH POLICY

Information obtained from this study can contribute to improvement of the quality of reporting observational studies in nursing and thus using obtained findings in practice.

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration

The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.

An evidence-based public health approach to climate change adaptation

BACKGROUND

Public health is committed to evidence-based practice, yet there has been minimal discussion of how to apply an evidence-based practice framework to climate change adaptation.

OBJECTIVES

Our goal was to review the literature on evidence-based public health (EBPH), to determine whether it can be applied to climate change adaptation, and to consider how emphasizing evidence-based practice may influence research and practice decisions related to public health adaptation to climate change.

METHODS

We conducted a substantive review of EBPH, identified a consensus EBPH framework, and modified it to support an EBPH approach to climate change adaptation. We applied the framework to an example and considered implications for stakeholders.

DISCUSSION

A modified EBPH framework can accommodate the wide range of exposures, outcomes, and modes of inquiry associated with climate change adaptation and the variety of settings in which adaptation activities will be pursued. Several factors currently limit application of the framework, including a lack of higher-level evidence of intervention efficacy and a lack of guidelines for reporting climate change health impact projections. To enhance the evidence base, there must be increased attention to designing, evaluating, and reporting adaptation interventions; standardized health impact projection reporting; and increased attention to knowledge translation. This approach has implications for funders, researchers, journal editors, practitioners, and policy makers.

CONCLUSIONS

The current approach to EBPH can, with modifications, support climate change adaptation activities, but there is little evidence regarding interventions and knowledge translation, and guidelines for projecting health impacts are lacking. Realizing the goal of an evidence-based approach will require systematic, coordinated efforts among various stakeholders.

Reporting medical research

Accurate, complete and timely publication of research studies is an integral part of a responsible research conduct. Following the reporting guidelines helps in preparing high quality research papers, facilitates peer review, and increases the chances of paper acceptance by a suitable journal. The EQUATOR Network website (www.equator-network.org) provides a collection of reporting guidelines and other resources helping researchers to publish their research studies.