Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the nursing literature: application of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT)

Assessment of consistency between peer-reviewed publications and clinical trial registrations in nursing journals

BACKGROUND

The inconsistencies between randomized clinical trials (RCTs) registrations and peer-reviewed publications may distort trial results and threaten the validity of evidence-based medicine. Previous studies have found many inconsistencies between RCTs registrations and peer-reviewed publications, and outcome reporting bias is prevalent.

AIMS

The aims of this review were to assess whether the primary outcomes and other data reported in publications and registered records in RCTs of nursing journals were consistent and whether discrepancies in the reporting of primary outcomes favored statistically significant results. Moreover, we reviewed the proportion of RCTs for prospective registration.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed for RCTs published in the top 10 nursing journals between March 5, 2020, and March 5, 2022. Registration numbers were extracted from the publications, and registered records were identified from the registration platforms. The publications and registered records were compared to identify consistency. Inconsistencies were subdivided into discrepancies and omissions.

RESULTS

A total of 70 RCTs published in seven journals were included. The inconsistencies involved sample size estimation (71.4%), random sequence generation (75.7%), allocation concealment (97.1%), blinding (82.9%), primary outcomes (60.0%) and secondary outcomes (84.3%). Among the inconsistencies in the primary outcomes, 21.4% were due to discrepancies and 38.6% resulted from omissions. Fifty-three percent (8/15) presented discrepancies in the primary outcomes that favored statistically significant results. Additionally, although only 40.0% of the studies were prospective registrations, the number of prospectively registered trials has trended upward over time.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

While not including all RCTs in the nursing field, our sample reflected a general trend: inconsistencies between publications and trial registrations were prevalent in the included nursing journals. Our research helps to provide a way to improve the transparency of research reports. Ensuring that clinical practice has access to transparent and reliable research results are essential to achieve the best possible evidence-based medicine.

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.

Todurujo na Kadurok (empowering youth): study protocol of an HIV self-testing and edutainment comic cluster randomised trial among refugee youth in a humanitarian setting in Uganda

INTRODUCTION

Refugees experience HIV vulnerabilities due to the confluence of displacement, violence and poverty. HIV self-testing, understudied with refugees, is a promising method to increase testing uptake, yet challenges remain with linkages to confirmatory testing following a positive HIV self-test. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of HIV self-testing kits and 'edutainment' comics in increasing HIV testing and HIV status knowledge among refugee youth aged 16-24 years in Bidi Bidi Refugee Settlement, Uganda.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will be conducted in Bidi Bidi. We conducted a qualitative formative phase with focus groups (n=40) to generate knowledge of barriers and facilitators of HIV prevention, testing and care among refugee youth (aged 16-24) in Bidi Bidi. These findings were used to create comic scenarios aligning with edutainment approaches to health promotion and inform a four-arm cluster randomised controlled trial in Bidi Bidi using a 2×2 factorial design: (1) HIV self-testing alongside edutainment comics, (2) HIV self-testing alone, (3) edutainment comic alone and (4) standard of care. The target sample size will be 120 youth (30 per arm), who will be enrolled in the trial and followed for 3 months. Data will be collected at baseline and 3 months after enrolment. The primary outcomes (HIV testing frequency, HIV status knowledge) and secondary outcomes (linkage to confirmatory HIV testing, HIV care linkage, HIV self-test kit use, HIV-related stigma, HIV knowledge, safer sex efficacy, condom use, adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) stigma, sexual relationship power, access to SRH services) will be evaluated using descriptive statistics and regression analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board, Mildmay Uganda Research Ethics Committee and the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. Results will be shared in peer-reviewed publications and community knowledge sharing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05213689.

Analysis of the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in anticoagulant versus antiplatelet medication for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis as governed by the CONSORT statement

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard research in evaluating healthcare interventions. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement improves the quality of RCTs in an evidence-based approach. To evaluate the reporting quality of published RCTs concerning the use of anticoagulants versus antiplatelet agents for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis according to the CONSORT statement. Electronic databases were searched for English-language RCTs involving patients who received either anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication for prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism published from 2000 to 2019. Trials were considered eligible when the included patients received either anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication for primary and secondary prevention of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism and were randomly assigned to at least two treatment arms. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 37-item questionnaire based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist. Reporting was assessed in 2 publication periods (2000-2009) and (2010-2019). The effect of CONSORT statement in high- and low-ranked medical journals, according to their impact factor, has also been evaluated. The search identified 13 eligible articles for analysis. Only 12 of the 37 items of the checklist were addressed in 75% or more of the studies. Most items concerning the methodological issues were reported by fewer than 50% of the studies. Improvements over time were seen for items that assessed the methodological quality with no statistically significant difference. RCTs published in high-ranked journals showed better quality of reporting. Quality of reporting in RCTs focusing on the use of anticoagulants versus antiplatelet agents for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis remains unsatisfactory. Further improvement of reporting is necessary to assess the validity of clinical research.

Towards improving the quality of assistive technology outcomes research

BACKGROUND

The Assistive Technology Device Outcomes Research (ATDOR) checklist was developed as a reporting guideline for researchers to enhance the quality of research in this field. The checklist contains 13 items that cover outcome domains unique to assistive technology devices (ATDs). The ATDOR was intended to be an adjunct to existing publication guidelines for outcomes research.

PURPOSE

The aim of this investigation was to examine the ability of the ATDOR checklist to identify strengths and weaknesses in ATD outcomes research publications that may not be detected using another publication guideline designed for outcomes research.

METHODS

Twenty original ATD outcome studies were scored using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist, and the ATDOR in two evaluation rounds. In the first round, articles were scored using the TIDieR alone. In the second round, they were scored using the TIDieR and ATDOR together. The difference in percentage scores between the two evaluation rounds was examined using the Wilcoxon signed rank-sum test for paired data.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant difference in the percentage scores between the two evaluation rounds (Wilcoxon statistic = 10, Z = -3.547, p<.000).

CONCLUSION

When used alongside the TIDieR, the ATDOR adds significant value to evaluations of reporting quality on assistive technology outcomes research. As this field continues to grow, researchers are invited to join in efforts to standardise reporting to promote healthier outcomes for ATD users.Implications for rehabilitationReporting guidelines that evaluate research studies enhance their reporting quality and promote healthier outcomes for ATD users.The Assistive Technology Device Outcomes Research (ATDOR) checklist was shown to be a useful tool for achieving a minimum standard of reporting in the field of assistive technology.As the field of assistive technology continues to explore different methodologies, ongoing efforts to develop and update reporting guidelines are necessary in order to capture the future needs of this research area.

Toward guidelines for reporting assistive technology device outcomes

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop and pilot-test reporting guidelines for manuscripts describing studies of assistive technology device outcomes, with the hopes of improving the overall quality of research in this field.

METHODS

The research is presented in two stages. In Stage 1, a literature review was completed to identify the essential components of a conceptual framework for reporting guidelines and to create a checklist. In Stage 2, two independent reviewers evaluated twenty articles using the checklist to identify any short-comings of the tool and produce an estimate of interrater reliability. Two items of the original checklist were revised after reconciling disagreements between the two raters.

RESULTS

The Cohen's Kappa value of the checklist was 0.887 (p < .000), reflecting excellent interrater agreement. The overall percent agreement was 94.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting guidelines for studies of assistive technology device outcomes appear to be reliable. Although the checklist may require periodic updating, it has potential for advancing outcomes research. Researchers are invited to share comments and criticisms to aid in the efforts of enhancing the quality of reporting in this field.Implications for rehabilitationReporting checklists and guidelines are effective tools for achieving a minimum standard of reporting quality in all areas of rehabilitation research.This study presents a preliminary reporting checklist for the field of assistive technology device outcomes that has potential for advancing outcomes research.Authors and journal editors are encouraged to adopt and adhere to reporting guidelines in order to enhance the clarity and completeness of prospective studies.

Randomized Controlled Trials and Quasi-Experimental Studies Published in Nursing Journals: Findings From a Scoping Review With Implications for Further Research

BACKGROUND

Experimental studies are considered capable of generating substantial evidence; therefore, their production and diffusion are continuously encouraged. However, their trends as publication outputs in nursing journals have rarely been evaluated to date.

AIMS

To describe experimental study design features among the highest indexed nursing journals.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed by retrieving and analyzing experimental studies published between 2009 and 2016 in nursing journals with a 5-year impact factor >1.5 according to Thomson's Journal Citation Reports.

RESULTS

A total of 602 studies were reviewed and 340 (56%) were included; in all, 298/340 (87.6%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 37/340 (10.9%) pilot studies. The publication trend exhibited a fluctuating pattern with a slight decrease over time (from 54 studies in 2009 to 32 in 2016). Researchers working in Asia and Europe have published more frequently in the selected journals. Published studies most often involved oncological (n = 69, 20%), surgical (n = 41, 12%), and elderly patients (n = 38, 11%). Educational and supportive (n = 119, 35%) interventions were mainly tested for effectiveness. Approximately half of studies enrolled <100 patients, and only two-thirds had included an a priori sample size calculation. Less than one quarter (n = 76) of the research teams were multiprofessional, and 70% of studies were funded, generally, by public institutions.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

A broad range of research questions has been investigated to date by using experimental study designs. However, study methods and multidisciplinary collaborations must be enhanced with the intent of producing large-scale and methodologically sound studies. Furthermore, reasons for limited funding and, particularly, the lack of support from private funding should be further investigated.

Comparison of the Quality of Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Both Nursing and Medical Journals: Adherence to the CONSORT Statement

BACKGROUND

Nursing care should be based on scientific evidence. However, studies must be performed rigorously with accurate reporting for their findings to be applicable to practice. Since the body of scientific nursing literature is broad, the quality and validity of its findings should be regularly controlled and verified to ensure their application and their practical impact.

PURPOSE

To compare reporting quality of pediatric randomized controlled trial (RCT) articles in nursing and medical journals.

METHODS

Randomly selected articles were reviewed and scored to assess the number of CONSORT items that were adequately reported, generating a CONSORT score. The CONSORT scores for 28 items were compared between the two journal types.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The CONSORT scores by journal type were not significantly different: (19.2 [16.2; 22] for medical journals and 19.5 [16.1; 21.5] for nursing journals, p = .77). The reporting of CONSORT items was poor for both journal types. However, there were two significant differences: item 19 (Declaration of all important harm or unintended effects, p = .0006) and item 23 (Registration number of the study, p = .0003), were reported more often in medical journals. The adherence of journals to the CONSORT statement and large sample size was associated with better quality of the reporting of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on reporting quality, nursing studies have the same scientific credibility and rigor as medical studies in the pediatric field.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

The findings of this study could help researchers improve the reporting of their studies and highlight the importance of reporting quality for future knowledge transfer and practical use. The quality of research and its reporting is necessary to improve knowledge transfer into practice.

Quality of Author Guidelines in Nursing Journals

Purpose

The aims of this study were to (a) describe the information provided in author guidelines in nursing journals, (b) assess the completeness of this information, and (c) identify the extent and types of reporting guidelines used in nursing journals.

Design

Content analysis of author guidelines for 245 nursing journals included in the Directory of Nursing Journals maintained at the International Academy of Nursing Editors website.

Methods

Using Research Electronic Data Capture, data on 19 criteria for completeness were extracted from published author guidelines. Additional details about journal requirements, such as allowed length of manuscripts and format for the abstract, were also recorded. Reliability was established by simultaneous review of 25 journals (10%) by the research assistant and a senior member of the research team.

Findings

Author guidelines were easily accessible at journal websites or through links to download the information. A majority (73.5%) had completeness scores of 75% or higher; six journals had guidelines that were 100% complete. Half of the journals used the American Psychological Association reference style, and 26.3% used the American Medical Association style. Less than one fourth had stated requirements to use reporting guidelines such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA).

Conclusions

Author guidelines for nursing journals are generally complete and informative. Although specific reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and PRISMA improve the accuracy and completeness of manuscripts on various types of studies, most nursing journals do not indicate use of these for manuscript preparation. Editors who want to improve their author guidelines should use the 19 criteria for completeness as a gauge for updating and revision.

Clinical Relevance

Nurses rely on the published literature to inform their practice and ensure that it is based on evidence. Guidelines for publishing in the scholarly literature assist clinicians and scholars to ensure that published articles are complete, current, concise, and accurate.

Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions

Evidence from a well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) is generally considered to be the gold standard that can inform clinical practice and guide decision-making. However, several deficiencies in the reporting of RCTs have frequently been identified, including incomplete, selective, and biased or inconsistent reporting. Such suboptimal reporting may lead to irreproducible results, substantial waste of resources, impaired study validity, erosion of public trust in science, and a high risk of research misconduct. In this article, we present an overview of the reporting of RCTs in the biomedical literature with a focus on the three most common reporting problems: (i) lack of adherence to reporting guidelines, (ii) inconsistencies between trial protocols or registrations and full reports, and (iii) inconsistencies between abstracts and their corresponding full reports. Unsatisfactory levels of adherence to guidelines and frequent inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports, and between abstracts and full reports, were consistently found in various biomedical research fields. A variety of factors were found to be associated with these reporting challenges. Improved reporting can build public trust and credibility of science, save resources, and enhance the ethical integrity of research. Therefore, joint efforts from the various sectors of the biomedical community (researchers, journal editors and reviewers, educators, healthcare providers, and other research consumers) are needed to reduce and reverse the current suboptimal state of RCT reporting in the literature.

Revisiting the Quality of Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Nursing Literature

PURPOSE

To examine and update the literature on the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as reported in top nursing journals, based on manuscripts' adherence to the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.

DESIGN

Descriptive review of adherence of RCT manuscript to CONSORT guidelines.

METHODS

Top 40 International Scientific Indexing (ISI) ranked nursing journals that published 20 or more RCTs between 2010 and 2014, were included in the study. Selected articles were randomly assigned to four reviewers who assessed the quality of the articles using the CONSORT checklist. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

FINDINGS

A total of 119 articles were included in the review. The mean CONSORT score significantly differed by journal but did not differ based on year of publication. The least consistently reported items included random allocation, who randomly assigned participants and whether those administering the interventions were blinded to group assignment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although progress has been made, there is still room for improvement in the quality of RCT reporting in nursing journals. Special attention must be paid to how adequately studies adhere to the CONSORT prior to publication in nursing journals.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Evidence from (RCTs) are thought to provide the best evidence for evaluating the impact of treatments and interventions by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Since the evidence may be used for the development of clinical practice guidelines, it is critical that RCTs be designed, conducted, and reported appropriately and precisely.

Adherence to the CONSORT Statement in the Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials on Pharmacological Interventions Published in Iranian Medical Journals

BACKGROUND

Among manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form the backbone of evidence-based medicine. Hence, their protocol should be designed rigorously and their results should be reported clearly. To improve the quality of RCT reporting, researchers developed the CONSORT Statement in 1996 and updated it in 2010. This study was designed to assess the quality of RCT reporting vis-à-vis adherence to CONSORT among articles published in Iranian medical journals (English, Persian, CONSORT-endorsing, and non-CONSORT-endorsing).

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, all RCTs published in all Iranian medical journals from September 2012 to September 2013 were retrieved to evaluate their adherence to CONSORT. The journals' instructions for authors were also reviewed to find out whether or not they endorsed CONSORT. The CONSORT 2010 Checklist was used. Microsoft Excel 2007 was applied to analyze the data, and MedCalc was employed to compare the groups.

RESULTS

Totally, 492 pharmacological RCTs that met our inclusion criteria were identified. Twenty-five items were reported in fewer than 50% of the articles. The differences between the articles published in Persian and English language journals were statistically significant in 17 items. The differences between the articles published in the CONSORT-endorsing and non-CONSORT-endorsing journals were significant in 8 items.

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed very weak adherence to CONSORT. Authors, reviewers, and editors should be trained to use standards expressed by the CONSORT Group in reporting RCTs.

Research in Nursing and Nutrition: Is Randomized Clinical Trial the Actual Gold Standard?

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of nurse-driven randomized controlled trials involving a direct nutritional intervention. A bibliometric search for randomized controlled trials involving a direct nutritional intervention from 1991 to 2011 in nursing research was conducted. Both quality of the study and design aspects were evaluated. The prevalent randomized controlled trial design used is 2-arm parallel, individual, and randomized with a continuous primary endpoint. Global numbers of randomized controlled trials and the proportion of good-quality randomized controlled trials began a steady and marked rise, more than doubling, from the 1990s to about 2001 and increased slowly thereafter. Studies are overall sufficiently well designed, although there is still room for quality improvement. Additionally, implementation of new randomized controlled trial designs exists and should be advocated.

Reporting interventions in trials evaluating cognitive rehabilitation in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the quantity and quality of description of cognitive rehabilitation for cognitive deficits in people with multiple sclerosis, using a variety of published checklists, and suggest ways of improving the reporting of these interventions.

DATA SOURCES

A total of 10 electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, from inception to May 2017. Grey literature databases, trial registers, reference lists and author citations were also searched.

REVIEW METHODS

Papers were included if participants were people with multiple sclerosis aged 18 years and over and if the effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation in improving functional ability for memory, attention or executive dysfunction, with or without a control group, was being evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 54 studies were included in this review. The reporting of a number of key aspects of cognitive rehabilitation was poor. This was particularly in relation to content of interventions (reported completely in 26 of the 54 studies), intervention procedures (reported completely in 16 of the 54 studies), delivery mode (reported completely in 24 of the 54 studies) and intervention mechanism of action (reported completely in 21 of the 54 studies).

CONCLUSION

The quality of reporting of cognitive rehabilitation for memory, attention and executive function for multiple sclerosis, across a range of study designs, is poor. Existing reporting checklists do not adequately cover aspects relevant to cognitive rehabilitation, such as the approaches used to address cognitive deficits. Future checklists could consider these aspects we have identified in this review.

State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Incomplete or inconsistent reporting remains a major concern in the biomedical literature. Incomplete or inconsistent reporting may yield the published findings unreliable, irreproducible or sometimes misleading. In this study based on evidence from systematic reviews and surveys that have evaluated the reporting issues in primary biomedical studies, we aim to conduct a scoping review with focuses on (1) the state-of-the-art extent of adherence to the emerging reporting guidelines in primary biomedical research, (2) the inconsistency between protocols or registrations and full reports and (3) the disagreement between abstracts and full-text articles.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

We will use a comprehensive search strategy to retrieve all available and eligible systematic reviews and surveys in the literature. We will search the following electronic databases: Web of Science, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Our outcomes are levels of adherence to reporting guidelines, levels of consistency between protocols or registrations and full reports and the agreement between abstracts and full reports, all of which will be expressed as percentages, quality scores or categorised rating (such as high, medium and low). No pooled analyses will be performed quantitatively given the heterogeneity of the included systematic reviews and surveys. Likewise, factors associated with improved completeness and consistency of reporting will be summarised qualitatively. The quality of the included systematic reviews will be evaluated using AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

All findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and relevant conferences. These results may advance our understanding of the extent of incomplete and inconsistent reporting, factors related to improved completeness and consistency of reporting and potential recommendations for various stakeholders in the biomedical community.

Lateral positioning for critically ill adult patients

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients require regular body position changes to minimize the adverse effects of bed rest, inactivity and immobilization. However, uncertainty surrounds the effectiveness of lateral positioning for improving pulmonary gas exchange, aiding drainage of tracheobronchial secretions and preventing morbidity. In addition, it is unclear whether the perceived risk levied by respiratory and haemodynamic instability upon turning critically ill patients outweighs the respiratory benefits of side-to-side rotation. Thus, lack of certainty may contribute to variation in positioning practice and equivocal patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate effects of the lateral position compared with other body positions on patient outcomes (mortality, morbidity and clinical adverse events) in critically ill adult patients. (Clinical adverse events include hypoxaemia, hypotension, low oxygen delivery and global indicators of impaired tissue oxygenation.) We examined single use of the lateral position (i.e. on the right or left side) and repeat use of the lateral position (i.e. lateral positioning) within a positioning schedule.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1950 to 23 May 2015), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1937 to 23 May 2015), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (1984 to 23 May 2015), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1901 to 23 May 2015), Web of Science (1945 to 23 May 2015), Index to Theses in Great Britain and Ireland (1950 to 23 May 2015), Trove (2009 to 23 May 2015; previously Australasian Digital Theses Program (1997 to December 2008)) and Proquest Dissertations and Theses (2009 to 23 May 2015; previously Proquest Digital Dissertations (1980 to 23 May 2015)). We handsearched the reference lists of potentially relevant reports and two nursing journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized trials examining effects of lateral positioning in critically ill adults. We included manual or automated turns but limited eligibility to studies that included duration of body position of 10 minutes or longer. We examined each lateral position versus at least one comparator (opposite lateral position and/or another body position) for single therapy effects, and the lateral positioning schedule (repeated lateral turning) versus other positioning schedules for repetitive therapy effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We pre-specified methods to be used for data collection, risk of bias assessment and analysis. Two independent review authors carried out each stage of selection and data extraction and settled differences in opinion by consensus, or by third party adjudication when disagreements remained unresolved. We planned analysis of pair-wise comparisons under composite time intervals with the aim of considering recommendations based on meta-analyses of studies with low risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 studies of critically ill adults. No study reported mortality as an outcome of interest. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined lateral positioning for pulmonary morbidity outcomes but provided insufficient information for meta-analysis. A total of 22 randomized trials examined effects of lateral positioning (four parallel-group and 18 cross-over designs) by measuring various continuous data outcomes commonly used to detect adverse cardiopulmonary events within critical care areas. However, parallel-group studies were not comparable, and cross-over studies provided limited data as the result of unit of analysis errors. Eight studies provided some data; most of these were single studies with small effects that were imprecise. We pooled partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) as a measure to detect hypoxaemia from two small studies of participants with unilateral lung disease (n = 19). The mean difference (MD) between lateral positions (bad lung down versus good lung down) was approximately 50 mmHg (MD -49.26 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -67.33 to -31.18; P value < 0.00001). Despite a lower mean PaO2 for bad lung down, hypoxaemia (mean PaO2 < 60 mmHg) was not consistently reported. Furthermore, pooled data had methodological shortcomings with unclear risk of bias. We had similar doubts regarding internal validity for other studies included in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Review authors could provide no clinical practice recommendations based on the findings of included studies. Available research could not eliminate the uncertainty surrounding benefits and/or risks associated with lateral positioning of critically ill adult patients. Research gaps include the effectiveness of lateral positioning compared with semi recumbent positioning for mechanically ventilated patients, lateral positioning compared with prone positioning for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and less frequent changes in body position. We recommend that future research be undertaken to address whether the routine practice of repositioning patients on their side benefits all, some or few critically ill patients.

Associated Factors and Consequences of Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Yoga: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of complementary therapy interventions seems to be associated with specific factors and to potentially distort the studies' conclusions. This systematic review assessed associated factors of risk of bias and consequences for the studies' conclusions in RCTs of yoga as one of the most commonly used complementary therapies.

METHODS

Medline/PubMed, Scopus, IndMED and the Cochrane Library were searched through February 2014 for yoga RCTs. Risk of selection bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and regressed to a) publication year; b) country of origin; c) journal type; and d) impact factor using multiple logistic regression analysis. Likewise, the authors' conclusions were regressed to risk of bias.

RESULTS

A total of 312 RCTs were included. Impact factor ranged from 0.0 to 39.2 (median = 1.3); 60 RCT (19.2%) had a low risk of selection bias, and 252 (80.8%) had a high or unclear risk of selection bias. Only publication year and impact factor significantly predicted low risk of bias; RCTs published after 2001 (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 12.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.7, 94.0; p<0.001) and those published in journals with impact factor (adjusted OR = 2.6; 95%CI = 1.4, 4.9; p = 0.004) were more likely to have low risk of bias. The authors' conclusions were not associated with risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of selection bias was generally high in RCTs of yoga; although the situation has improved since the publication of the revised CONSORT statement 2001. Pre-CONSORT RCTs and those published in journals without impact factor should be handled with increased care; although risk of bias is unlikely to distort the RCTs' conclusions.

A checklist to improve reporting of group-based behaviour-change interventions

BACKGROUND

Published descriptions of group-based behaviour-change interventions (GB-BCIs) often omit design and delivery features specific to the group setting. This impedes the ability to compare behaviour-change interventions, synthesise evidence on their effectiveness and replicate effective interventions. The aim of this study was to develop a checklist of elements that should be described to ensure adequate reporting of GB-BCIs.

METHODS

A range of characteristics needed to replicate GB-BCIs were extracted from the literature and precisely defined. An abbreviated checklist and a coder manual were developed, pilot tested and refined. The final checklist and coder manual were used to identify the presence or absence of specified reporting elements in 30 published descriptions of GB-BCIs by two independent coders. Reliability of coding was assessed.

RESULTS

The checklist comprises 26 essential reporting elements, covering intervention design, intervention content, participant characteristics, and facilitator characteristics. Inter-rater reliability for identification of reporting elements was high (95% agreement, Mean AC1 = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

The checklist is a practical tool that can be used, alongside other reporting guidelines, to ensure comprehensive description and to assess reporting quality of GB-BCIs. It can also be helpful for designing group-based health interventions.

Findings from a novel approach to publication guideline revision: user road testing of a draft version of SQUIRE 2.0

Background

The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) Guideline was published in 2008 (SQUIRE 1.0) and was the first publication guideline specifically designed to advance the science of healthcare improvement. Advances in the discipline of improvement prompted us to revise it. We adopted a novel approach to the revision by asking end-users to ‘road test’ a draft version of SQUIRE 2.0. The aim was to determine whether they understood and implemented the guidelines as intended by the developers.

Methods

Forty-four participants were assigned a manuscript section (ie, introduction, methods, results, discussion) and asked to use the draft Guidelines to guide their writing process. They indicated the text that corresponded to each SQUIRE item used and submitted it along with a confidential survey. The survey examined usability of the Guidelines using Likert-scaled questions and participants’ interpretation of key concepts in SQUIRE using open-ended questions. On the submitted text, we evaluated concordance between participants’ item usage/interpretation and the developers’ intended application. For the survey, the Likert-scaled responses were summarised using descriptive statistics and the open-ended questions were analysed by content analysis.

Results

Consistent with the SQUIRE Guidelines’ recommendation that not every item be included, less than one-third (n=14) of participants applied every item in their section in full. Of the 85 instances when an item was partially used or was omitted, only 7 (8.2%) of these instances were due to participants not understanding the item. Usage of Guideline items was highest for items most similar to standard scientific reporting (ie, ‘Specific aim of the improvement’ (introduction), ‘Description of the improvement’ (methods) and ‘Implications for further studies’ (discussion)) and lowest (<20% of the time) for those unique to healthcare improvement (ie, ‘Assessment methods for context factors that contributed to success or failure’ and ‘Costs and strategic trade-offs’). Items unique to healthcare improvement, specifically ‘Evolution of the improvement’, ‘Context elements that influenced the improvement’, ‘The logic on which the improvement was based’, ‘Process and outcome measures’, demonstrated poor concordance between participants’ interpretation and developers’ intended application.

Conclusions

User testing of a draft version of SQUIRE 2.0 revealed which items have poor concordance between developer intent and author usage, which will inform final editing of the Guideline and development of supporting supplementary materials. It also identified the items that require special attention when teaching about scholarly writing in healthcare improvement.

Randomized controlled trials in adult traumatic brain injury: a review of compliance to CONSORT statement

OBJECTIVE

To describe the extent to which adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult traumatic brain injury (TBI) has improved over time.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to September 2013.

STUDY SELECTION

Primary report of RCTs in adult TBI. The quality of reporting on CONSORT checklist items was examined and compared over time. Study selection was conducted by 2 researchers independently. Any disagreements were solved by discussion.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently conducted data extraction based on a set of structured data extraction forms. Data regarding the publication years, size, locations, participation centers, intervention types, intervention groups, and CONSORT checklist items were extracted from the including trials.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Of 105 trials reviewed, 38.1%, 5.7%, and 32.4% investigated drugs, surgical procedures, and rehabilitations as the intervention of interest, respectively. Among reports published between the 2 periods 2002 and 2010 (n=51) and 2011 and September 2013 (n=16), the median sample sizes were 99 and 118; 39.2% and 37.5% of all reports detailed implementation of the randomization process; 60.8% and 43.8% provided information on the method of allocation concealment; 56.9% and 31.3% stated how blinding was achieved; 15.7% and 43.8% reported information regarding trial registration; and only 2.0% and 6.3% stated where the full trial protocol could be accessed, all respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of several important methodological aspects of RCTs conducted in adult TBI populations improved over the years; however, the quality of reporting remains below an acceptable level. The small sample sizes suggest that many RCTs are likely underpowered. Further improvement is recommended in designing and reporting RCTs.

Methodological reporting of randomized trials in five leading Chinese nursing journals

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not always well reported, especially in terms of their methodological descriptions. This study aimed to investigate the adherence of methodological reporting complying with CONSORT and explore associated trial level variables in the Chinese nursing care field.

METHODS

In June 2012, we identified RCTs published in five leading Chinese nursing journals and included trials with details of randomized methods. The quality of methodological reporting was measured through the methods section of the CONSORT checklist and the overall CONSORT methodological items score was calculated and expressed as a percentage. Meanwhile, we hypothesized that some general and methodological characteristics were associated with reporting quality and conducted a regression with these data to explore the correlation. The descriptive and regression statistics were calculated via SPSS 13.0.

RESULTS

In total, 680 RCTs were included. The overall CONSORT methodological items score was 6.34 ± 0.97 (Mean ± SD). No RCT reported descriptions and changes in "trial design," changes in "outcomes" and "implementation," or descriptions of the similarity of interventions for "blinding." Poor reporting was found in detailing the "settings of participants" (13.1%), "type of randomization sequence generation" (1.8%), calculation methods of "sample size" (0.4%), explanation of any interim analyses and stopping guidelines for "sample size" (0.3%), "allocation concealment mechanism" (0.3%), additional analyses in "statistical methods" (2.1%), and targeted subjects and methods of "blinding" (5.9%). More than 50% of trials described randomization sequence generation, the eligibility criteria of "participants," "interventions," and definitions of the "outcomes" and "statistical methods." The regression analysis found that publication year and ITT analysis were weakly associated with CONSORT score.

CONCLUSIONS

The completeness of methodological reporting of RCTs in the Chinese nursing care field is poor, especially with regard to the reporting of trial design, changes in outcomes, sample size calculation, allocation concealment, blinding, and statistical methods.

Endorsement of the CONSORT guidelines, trial registration, and the quality of reporting randomised controlled trials in leading nursing journals: A cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVE

To establish the reporting quality of trials published in leading nursing journals and investigate associations between CONSORT Statement or trial registration endorsment and reporting of design elements.

METHODS

The top 15 nursing journals were searched using Medline for randomised controlled trials published in 2012. Journals were categorised as CONSORT and trial registration promoting based on requirements of submitting authors or the journal's webpage as at January 2014. Data on sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow up, blinding, baseline equivalence and sample size calculation were extracted by one author and independently verified by the second author against source data.

RESULTS

Seven journals were CONSORT promoting and three of these journals were also trial registration promoting. 114 citations were identified and 83 were randomised controlled trials. Eighteen trials (21.7%) were registered and those published in trial registration promoting journals were more likely to be registered (RR 2.64 95%CI 1.14-6.09). We assessed 68.7% of trials to be low risk of bias for sequence generation, 20.5% for allocation concealment, 38.6% for blinding, 55.4% for completeness of follow up and 79.5% for baseline equivalence. Trials published in CONSORT promoting journals were more likely to be at low risk of bias for blinding (RR 2.33, 95%CI 1.01-5.34) and completeness of follow up (RR 1.77, 95%CI 1.02-3.10), but journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement or trial registration otherwise had no significant effect. Trials published in CONSORT and trial registration promoting journals were more likely to have high quality sample size calculations (RR 2.91, 95%CI 1.18-7.19 and RR 1.69, 95%CI 1.08-2.64, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Simple endorsement of the CONSORT Statement and trials registration is insufficient action to encourage improvement of the quality of trial reporting across the most important of trial design elements.

Trends in RCT nursing research over 20 years: mind the gap

Randomised controlled trial (RCT) literature plays a fundamental role in informing evidence-based medicine and nursing. This paper aims to track geographical and temporal trends in the publication of RCTs in nursing over the past 20 years by means of a bibliometric analysis. The PubMed database was searched for articles published from 1 January 1991 to 31 October 2011 and satisfying this search strategy: nursing [MeSH Terms] AND (RCT OR trial* OR 'experimental study' OR randomised OR randomisation) AND (English[lang]). Abstracts were reviewed to assess whether they met the criteria for an RCT. A manual search of information on country of origin was carried out and Journal Citation Reports® was used to allocate journals to subject areas. RCT methodology is increasingly drawing the attention of nursing researchers worldwide. However, there is a large disparity in research productivity, at least in terms of number of published RCTs in the English language and listed on PubMed, between the most productive continents, North America and Europe, and the others.

Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review

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.

Challenges of conducting experimental studies within a clinical nursing context

In recent years, several distinguished scholars have advocated for nursing research that may carry strong evidence for practice. Their advocacy have highlighted that nursing science has reached a point where as nurse researchers we need to develop the questions we ask and design studies that have the power to produce solid, translational, evidence-based knowledge. To do so, we need to carry out experimental tests on complex, everyday nursing interventions and activities. We also need to create public space to present accounts of our endeavours pursuing this type of design in clinical practice. This paper will discuss some of the most important insights gained from conducting a quasi-experimental study in which the aim was to investigate the effect of a theory-based intervention, targeting knowledge and attitudes among registered nurses regarding cancer pain management. The importance of careful practical and methodological planning is emphasised, and the need for participation-friendly interventions is discussed.

A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature

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.

Compliance to the CONSORT statement of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation: a 3-year overview

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our primary aim was to assess to what extent reports of RCTs in solid organ transplantation adhere to the 2010 CONSORT statement. Secondly, we investigated the relationship between CONSORT adherence, methodological quality and some other factors. We included 290 RCTs that were published between 2007 and 2009. We examined to what extent trial reports complied with 30 items of the CONSORT statement. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale plus allocation concealment and whether data analysis was by randomized group (intention to treat). On average, trial reports addressed 47% of the CONSORT items. Forty-three per cent of RCTs was considered to be of good quality according to Jadad scale, and the items allocation concealment and data analysis were satisfied in approximately one-third of trials. Good quality RCTs reported on more CONSORT items than poor quality trials. The methodological quality and adherence to the CONSORT statement of RCTs published in journals that endorse the CONSORT statement was superior to those in journals without CONSORT endorsement. Overall compliance with the CONSORT statement and the methodological quality of RCTs in organ transplantation remains unsatisfactory.

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals

BACKGROUND

An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.

OBJECTIVES

To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors.   Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influence of the CONSORT Statement dependent on the extent of editorial policies to ensure adherence to CONSORT guidance.

Reporting guidelines for modelling studies

Background

Modelling studies are used widely to help inform decisions about health care and policy and their use is increasing. However, in order for modelling to gain strength as a tool for health policy, it is critical that key model factors are transparent so that users of models can have a clear understanding of the model and its limitations.Reporting guidelines are evidence-based tools that specify minimum criteria for authors to report their research such that readers can both critically appraise and interpret study findings. This study was conducted to determine whether there is an unmet need for population modelling reporting guidelines.

Methods

We conducted a review of the literature to identify: 1) guidance for reporting population modelling studies; and, 2) evidence on the quality of reporting of population modelling studies. Guidance for reporting was analysed using a thematic approach and the data was summarised as frequencies. Evidence on the quality of reporting was reviewed and summarized descriptively.

Results

There were no guidelines that specifically addressed the reporting of population modelling studies. We identified a number of reporting guidelines for economic evaluation studies, some of which had sections that were relevant population modelling studies. Amongst seven relevant records, we identified 69 quality criteria that have distinct reporting characteristics. We identified two papers that addressed reporting practices of modelling studies. Overall, with the exception of describing the data used for calibration, there was little consistency in reporting.

Conclusions

While numerous guidelines exist for developing and evaluating health technology assessment and economic evaluation models, which by extension could be applicable to population modelling studies, there is variation in their comprehensiveness and in the consistency of reporting these methods. Population modelling studies may be an area which would benefit from the development of a reporting guideline.

A call for transparent reporting to optimize the predictive value of preclinical research

The US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke convened major stakeholders in June 2012 to discuss how to improve the methodological reporting of animal studies in grant applications and publications. The main workshop recommendation is that at a minimum studies should report on sample-size estimation, whether and how animals were randomized, whether investigators were blind to the treatment, and the handling of data. We recognize that achieving a meaningful improvement in the quality of reporting will require a concerted effort by investigators, reviewers, funding agencies and journal editors. Requiring better reporting of animal studies will raise awareness of the importance of rigorous study design to accelerate scientific progress.

Does journal endorsement of reporting guidelines influence the completeness of reporting of health research? A systematic review protocol

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.

DISCUSSION

Evidence on which guidelines have been evaluated and which are associated with improved completeness of reporting is important for various stakeholders, including editors who consider which guidelines to endorse in their journal editorial policies.

Core journals that publish clinical trials of physical therapy interventions

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify core journals in physical therapy by identifying those that publish the most randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, provide the highest-quality reports of randomized controlled trials, and have the highest journal impact factors.

DESIGN

This study was an audit of a bibliographic database.

METHODS

All trials indexed in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) were analyzed. Journals that had published at least 80 trials were selected. The journals were ranked in 4 ways: number of trials published; mean total PEDro score of the trials published in the journal, regardless of publication year; mean total PEDro score of the trials published in the journal from 2000 to 2009; and 2008 journal impact factor.

RESULTS

The top 5 core journals in physical therapy, ranked by the total number of trials published, were Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Clinical Rehabilitation, Spine, British Medical Journal (BMJ), and Chest. When the mean total PEDro score was used as the ranking criterion, the top 5 journals were Journal of Physiotherapy, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Stroke, Spine, and Clinical Rehabilitation. When the mean total PEDro score of the trials published from 2000 to 2009 was used as the ranking criterion, the top 5 journals were Journal of Physiotherapy, JAMA, Lancet, BMJ, and Pain. The most highly ranked physical therapy-specific journals were Physical Therapy (ranked eighth on the basis of the number of trials published) and Journal of Physiotherapy (ranked first on the basis of the quality of trials). Finally, when the 2008 impact factor was used for ranking, the top 5 journals were JAMA, Lancet, BMJ, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, and Thorax. There were no significant relationships among the rankings on the basis of trial quality, number of trials, or journal impact factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical therapists who are trying to keep up-to-date by reading the best available evidence on the effects of physical therapy interventions have to read more broadly than just physical therapy-specific journals. Readers of articles on physical therapy trials should be aware that high-quality trials are not necessarily published in journals with high impact factors.

Reporting guidelines for survey research: an analysis of published guidance and reporting practices

BACKGROUND

Research needs to be reported transparently so readers can critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the design, conduct, and analysis of studies. Reporting guidelines have been developed to inform reporting for a variety of study designs. The objective of this study was to identify whether there is a need to develop a reporting guideline for survey research.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a three-part project: (1) a systematic review of the literature (including "Instructions to Authors" from the top five journals of 33 medical specialties and top 15 general and internal medicine journals) to identify guidance for reporting survey research; (2) a systematic review of evidence on the quality of reporting of surveys; and (3) a review of reporting of key quality criteria for survey research in 117 recently published reports of self-administered surveys. Fewer than 7% of medical journals (n = 165) provided guidance to authors on survey research despite a majority having published survey-based studies in recent years. We identified four published checklists for conducting or reporting survey research, none of which were validated. We identified eight previous reviews of survey reporting quality, which focused on issues of non-response and accessibility of questionnaires. Our own review of 117 published survey studies revealed that many items were poorly reported: few studies provided the survey or core questions (35%), reported the validity or reliability of the instrument (19%), defined the response rate (25%), discussed the representativeness of the sample (11%), or identified how missing data were handled (11%).

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited guidance and no consensus regarding the optimal reporting of survey research. The majority of key reporting criteria are poorly reported in peer-reviewed survey research articles. Our findings highlight the need for clear and consistent reporting guidelines specific to survey research.

Influence of trial registration on reporting quality of randomized trials: study from highest ranked journals

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting quality of key methodological items of randomized control trials (RCTs) in 55 of the highest ranked journals.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A list of the highest top ranked journals was identified, and a search for detecting RCTs in those journals was made. Two hundred sixty four journals were screened and 55 of them were identified having at least one RCT. Three RCTs were randomly selected a priori from each journal; 148 RCTs were finally included. RCTs were assessed by two reviewers using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.

RESULTS

Only 11 (8%) RCTs had all items adequately reported. In addition, 36% of RCTs reported that the study was registered in any trial registry. We found a significant difference in the quality of reporting for baseline characteristics, recruitment, participant's flow, and randomization implementation between those studies having reported the registration of their RCT in a trial registry and those that have not. Adherence to key methodological items of the CONSORT statement was as follows: sample size determination (60%), sequence generation (49%), allocation concealment (40%), and blinding (25%).

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of varied CONSORT items remains suboptimal. Registration in a trial registry was associated with improved reporting. Further efforts to enhance RCT registration could contribute to this improvement.

Health-training intervention for community-dwelling elderly in the SeniorWISE Study

This article describes the outcomes of a psychosocial intervention that tested whether health training could improve health and functional ability in a group of community-residing elderly persons. The health-training intervention consisted of eight 90-minute lecture and discussion classes conducted twice a week for 1 month. In 3 months following the posttest, an additional four booster sessions were delivered once per week for 1 month. Participants received a total of 20 hours of health training. The National Institutes of Health-funded SeniorWISE (Wisdom is Simply Exploration) study was advertised in the community as a program to learn strategies for successful aging. We describe the health curriculum and the health and functional outcomes for a 6-month period at preintervention, postintervention, and postbooster sessions. Complete data were available for 110 individuals. There was a statistically significant change on the Direct Assessment of Functional Status, F(2, 107) = 4.69, P < .012. Health variables remained stable over time. This intervention demonstrated that health training has the potential for noticeable improvement in Instrumental Activities of Daily Living function.

Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines

David Moher and colleagues from the EQUATOR network offer guidance and recommended steps for developing health research reporting guidelines.

Quality of interventional radiology literature: a review of articles published in JVIR and CVIR

PURPOSE

To evaluate the quality of reporting of clinical studies published in two interventional radiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two investigators reviewed all articles reporting the outcomes from therapies in 12 consecutive months of Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (JVIR) (August 2007 to July 2008) and CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology (CVIR) (July/August 2007 to May/June 2008). The included studies were evaluated by means of a score sheet adapted from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria. The score sheet was comprised of 22 categories, with each given a score of 0-2. These scores were summed (maximum score, 44) and the comparative results analyzed by using the Wilcoxon rank sum and chi(2) tests.

RESULTS

A total of 129 articles were reviewed from JVIR and 86 from CVIR. JVIR's mean score was 23.3 +/- 4.9, which was significantly higher than CVIR's mean score of 19.8 +/- 5.7 (P< .0001). Prospective studies comprised 38% (49 of 129) of JVIR's articles and 35% (31 of 86) of CVIR's studies (P = .9076). The mean sample sizes were larger for JVIR than for CVIR (130.8 and 66.3, respectively) (P = .0173). Both journals primarily published case series (112/129 [86.8%] for JVIR and 76/86 [88%] for CVIR). Only six of the 129 articles (4.6%) in JVIR and seven of the 87 (8.1%) in CVIR were randomized studies. Key weaknesses in reporting include lack of randomization, blinding of outcome assessment, sample size analysis, and proper reporting of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Articles published in both journals displayed substantial weaknesses that potentially limit the validity of their conclusions.

Evaluation of Statistical Approaches in Quantitative Nursing Research

The purposes of this study were to (a) develop a tool to assess statistical methods and (b) use the tool to evaluate recently published quantitative research. We rated the statistical approaches used in 152 studies published in the 5 top impact-factor nursing research journals from September 2005 to August 2007. Studies were generally of high quality; 45% scored between 80% and 100%, and 22% achieved a score of 100%. Predictors of high scores were interdisciplinary authorship, a statistician coauthor, and the number of aims. The authors conclude that studies published in high impact-factor nursing journals are statistically sound and provide a solid foundation for evidence-based practice.