Barriers and Enablers to Using Intervention Reporting Guidelines in Sports and Exercise Medicine Trials: A Mixed-Methods Study

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators for using intervention reporting guidelines (CERT and TIDieR) from authors of randomized controlled trials in sports and exercise medicine journals. DESIGN: Mixed-methods cross-sectional online survey. METHODS: We recruited authors of randomized controlled trials published from June 2, 2018, to June 2, 2022, in the 10 leading sports and exercise medicine journals. We invited authors of eligible trials to complete an online survey that included multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions, as well as open-ended free-text questions on the barriers and facilitators to using intervention reporting guidelines. We used descriptive analysis to summarize the quantitative data and a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers and facilitators from the qualitative data. We conducted a subgroup analysis to explore differences in barriers and facilitators between early-mid career researchers and senior researchers. RESULTS: Eighty-four participants from 21 countries completed the survey (44 early-mid-career researchers, 40 senior researchers). We identified 8 themes relating to using intervention reporting guidelines. Themes classified as barriers related to publication constraints (word count limits), low awareness of intervention reporting guidelines, unclear benefits of the guidelines, and the increased burden imposed upon the researcher. Themes classified as facilitators related to journal requirements for guidelines use, the desire to accurately describe interventions, recommendations from other researchers, and reporting guideline use indicating "quality" of work. CONCLUSION: Barriers to using intervention reporting guidelines are largely modifiable and could be addressed by journals mandating their use, and educational initiatives. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(2):1-11. Epub 16 November 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12110.

A randomized trial of an editorial intervention to reduce spin in the abstract's conclusion of manuscripts showed no significant effect

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effect of an intervention compared to the usual peer-review process on reducing spin in the abstract's conclusion of biomedical study reports.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a two-arm, parallel-group RCT in a sample of primary research manuscripts submitted to BMJ Open. The authors received short instructions alongside the peer reviewers' comments in the intervention group. We assessed the presence of spin (primary outcome), types of spin, and wording change in the revised abstract's conclusion. Outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention assignment.

RESULTS

Of the 184 manuscripts randomized, 108 (54 intervention, 54 control) were selected for revision and could be evaluated for the presence of spin. The proportion of manuscripts with spin was 6% lower (95% CI: 24% lower to 13% higher) in the intervention group (57%, 31/54) than in the control group (63%, 34/54). The wording of the revised abstract's conclusion was changed in 34/54 (63%) manuscripts in the intervention group and 26/54 (48%) in the control group. The four prespecified types of spin involved (i) selective reporting (12 in the intervention group vs. 8 in the control group), (ii) including information not supported by evidence (9 vs. 9), and (iii) interpretation not consistent with the study results (14 vs. 18), and (iv) unjustified recommendations for practice (5 vs. 11).

CONCLUSION

These short instructions to authors did not have a statistically significant effect on reducing spin in revised abstract conclusions, and based on the confidence interval, the existence of a large effect can be excluded. Other interventions to reduce spin in reports of original research should be evaluated.

STUDY REGISTRATION

osf.io/xnuyt.

The Changing Landscape of Journalology in Medicine

In the early 1970s, when Seminars in Nuclear Medicine started publication, little was known about the quality of reporting in biomedical journals. Senior scholars were invited to become scientific editors of journals based on their research credibility and stature. Their knowledge of journalology (publication science) was not assessed. Similarly, while the use of peer review was gaining momentum, there was limited guidance on the tasks and expectations of peer reviewing. Almost 50 years later, the evidence base regarding the quality of reporting is vast. This paper highlights some of this evidence including that relevant to imaging and nuclear medicine research. In biomedical publications, there is a crisis in reproducibility; high prevalence rates of reporting biases, such as selective outcome reporting; spin; low registration rates of research protocols; and endemic poor reporting of research across biomedicine. These issues and some more immediate solutions are also discussed in the paper. The use of reporting guidelines has been shown to be associated with better reporting of clinical trials and other research articles. The use of audit and feedback tools is likely to provide an important gauge about the functions of biomedical journals. Finally, the push to better equip scientific editors and peer reviewers is taking a more concerted effort.

Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers

There is clear guidance on the responsibilities of editors to ensure that the research they publish is of the highest possible quality. Poor reporting is unethical and directly impacts patient care. Reporting guidelines are a relatively recent development to help improve the accuracy, clarity, and transparency of biomedical publications. They have caught on, with hundreds of reporting guidelines now available. Some journals endorse reporting guidelines while a smaller number have used various approaches to implement them. Yet challenges remain - biomedical research is still not optimally reported despite the abundance of reporting guidelines. Electronic algorithms are now being developed to facilitate the choice of correct reporting guideline(s), while other tools are being integrated into journal editorial management processes. Universities need to consider whether it is responsible to advance careers of faculty based on poorly reported research which is of little societal value. If journals embraced auditing of the quality of articles they publish this would give them and their readers essential feedback from which to improve their product.

Guidance in author instructions of hematology and oncology journals: A cross sectional and longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

The debate about the value of biomedical publications led to recommendations for improving reporting quality. It is unclear to what extent these recommendations have been endorsed by journals. We analyzed whether specific recommendations were included in author instructions, which journal characteristics were associated with their endorsement, how endorsement of the domains changed and whether endorsement was associated with change of impact factor between 2010 and 2015.

METHODS

We considered two study samples consisting of "Hematology" and "Oncology" journals of the Journal Citation Report 2008 and 2014, respectively. We extracted information regarding endorsement of the (1) recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of (2) reporting guidelines, (3) requirement for trial registration and (4) disclosure of conflicts of interest. Data extraction was done by reading the author instructions before conducting a text search with keywords. We calculated a global generalized linear mixed effects model for endorsement of each of the four domains followed by separate multivariable logistic regression models and a longitudinal analysis. We defined endorsement as the author instructions saying that they approve the use of the recommendations.

RESULTS

In 2015, the ICMJE recommendations were mentioned in author instructions of 156 journals (67.5%). CONSORT was referred to by 77 journals (33.3%); MOOSE, PRISMA, STARD and STROBE were referred to by less than 15% of journals. There were 99 journals (42.9%) that recommended or required trial registration, 211 (91.3%) required authors to disclose conflicts of interest. Journal impact factor, journal start year and geographical region were positively associated with endorsement of any of the four domains. The overall endorsement of all domains increased between 2010 and 2015. The endorsement of any domain in 2010 seemed to be associated with an increased impact factor in 2014.

CONCLUSION

Hematology and oncology journals endorse major recommendations to various degrees. Endorsement is increasing slowly over time and might be positively associated with the journals' impact factor.

Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening?

The biomedical research complex has been estimated to consume almost a quarter of a trillion US dollars every year. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that a high proportion of this sum is avoidably wasted. In 2014, The Lancet published a series of five reviews showing how dividends from the investment in research might be increased from the relevance and priorities of the questions being asked, to how the research is designed, conducted, and reported. 17 recommendations were addressed to five main stakeholders-funders, regulators, journals, academic institutions, and researchers. This Review provides some initial observations on the possible effects of the Series, which seems to have provoked several important discussions and is on the agendas of several key players. Some examples of individual initiatives show ways to reduce waste and increase value in biomedical research. This momentum will probably move strongly across stakeholder groups, if collaborative relationships evolve between key players; further important work is needed to increase research value. A forthcoming meeting in Edinburgh, UK, will provide an initial forum within which to foster the collaboration needed.

Transparent reporting of trials is essential

Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) inform the care of future patients and are especially important to clinicians and systematic reviewers. Readers should satisfy themselves that the study methods were sound. Clinicians should consider the relevance to their own patients, both benefits and harms, and absolute as well as relative effects. Trial reports should provide a clear, transparent, and complete report of what was done and what was found. Unfortunately, bad reporting of RCTs is common, which has serious consequences for clinical practice, research, policy making, and ultimately for patients. RCT reports should adhere to the CONSORT Statement, a minimum set of items that should be addressed. Authors, peer reviewers, and editors should all work to ensure that research reports maximize the value derived from the cost and effort of conducting a trial.

Improving the reporting of randomised trials: the CONSORT Statement and beyond

An extensive and growing number of reviews of the published literature demonstrate that health research publications have frequent deficiencies. Of particular concern are poor reports of randomised trials, which make it difficult or impossible for readers to assess how the research was conducted, to evaluate the reliability of the findings, or to place them in the context of existing research evidence. As a result, published reports of trials often cannot be used by clinicians to inform patient care or to inform public health policy, and the data cannot be included in systematic reviews. Reporting guidelines are designed to identify the key information that researchers should include in a report of their research. We describe the history of reporting guidelines for randomised trials culminating in the CONSORT Statement in 1996. We detail the subsequent development and extension of CONSORT and consider related initiatives aimed at improving the reliability of the medical research literature.