Assessing the reporting quality of influenza outbreaks in the community

Paediatric cohort studies on lower respiratory diseases and their reporting quality: systematic review of the year 2018

The paediatric respiratory research community uses cohort studies extensively. However, the landscape of these studies and their quality of reporting has not been assessed.We performed a systematic review of publications on cohort studies reporting on paediatric lower respiratory problems published in 2018. We searched MEDLINE and Embase and extracted data on study and journal characteristics. We assessed the number of items of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist that a random sample (100 papers) reported. We analysed factors associated with the STROBE score and with the most poorly reported items, using Poisson and logistic regression.Of the 21 319 records identified, 369 full-text articles met our inclusion criteria. Most papers studied asthma aetiology through birth cohorts and were based in Europe or North America. The reporting quality was insufficient: 15% reported the 22 STROBE items; median (interquartile range) score 18 (16-21). The most poorly reported items were sources of bias, sample size, statistical methods, descriptive results and generalisability. None of the study or journal factors were associated with the STROBE score.We need a joint effort of editors, reviewers and authors to improve the reporting quality of paediatric cohort studies on respiratory problems.

Reporting quality of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Africa: A systematic analysis

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic analysis of the reporting quality of the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa from 2014-2018 using the Modified STROBE statement. We included studies on the 2014 EVD outbreak alone, limited to those on human patients in Africa. We searched the following databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for outbreak reports published between 2014-2018. We assessed factors potentially associated with the quality of reporting. A total of 69 of 131 (53%) articles within the full-text review fulfilled our eligibility criteria and underwent the Modified STROBE assessment for analyzing the quality of reporting. The Modified STROBE scores of the included studies ranged from 11-26 points and the mean was found to be 19.54 out of 30 with a standard deviation (SD) of ± 4.30. The top three reported Modified STROBE components were descriptive characteristics of study participants, scientific background and evidence rational, and clinical significance of observations. More than 75% of the studies met a majority of the criteria in the Modified STROBE assessment tool. Information that was commonly missing included addressing potential source of bias, sensitivity analysis, further results/analysis such as risk estimates and odds ratios, presence of a flowchart, and addressing missing data. In multivariable analysis, peer-reviewed publication was the only predictor that remained significantly associated with a higher Modified STROBE score. In conclusion, the large range of Modified STROBE scores observed indicates variability in the quality of outbreak reports for EVD. The review identified strong reporting in some areas, whereas other areas are in need of improvement, in particular providing an important description of the outbreak setting and identifying any external elements (potential biases and confounding factors) that could hinder the credibility of the findings.

A systematic review of quality of reporting in registered intimate partner violence studies: where can we improve?

BACKGROUND

Reporting quality is paramount when presenting clinical findings in published research to ensure that we have the highest quality of evidence. Poorly reported clinical findings can result in a number of potential pitfalls, including confusion of the methodology used or selective reporting of study results. There are guidelines and checklists that aim to standardize the way in which studies are reported in the literature to ensure transparency. The use of these reporting guidelines may aid in the appropriate reporting of research, which is of increased importance in highly complex fields like intimate partner violence (IPV). The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the reporting quality of published IPV studies using the CONSORT and STROBE checklists.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of three large study registries for IPV studies. Of the completed studies, we sought full text publications and used reporting checklists to assess the quality of reporting.

RESULTS

Of the 42 randomized controlled trials, the mean score on the CONSORT checklist was 63.5% (23.5/37 items, SD 4.7 items). There were also 12 pilot trials in this systematic review, which scored a mean of 49.3% (19.7/40 items; SD 3.3 items) on the CONSORT extension for pilot trials. We included 12 observational studies which scored a mean of 56.1% (18.5/33 items; SD: 4.1 items).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified an opportunity to improve reporting quality by encouraging adherence to reporting guidelines. There should be a particular focus on ensuring that pilot studies report pilot-specific items. All researchers have a responsibility to ensure commitment to high quality reporting to ensure transparency in IPV studies.

Clinical evaluation of rapid fluorescent diagnostic immunochromatographic test for influenza A virus (H1N1)

Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed to detect influenza A virus for the swift diagnosis and management of patients. However, despite the simplicity and convenience, the low sensitivity of RDTs remains a limitation for their use in point of care testing (POCT). In this study, we developed a rapid fluorescent immunochromatographic strip test (FICT) and the performance of FICT was confirmed by the real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) of H1N1, compared with that of RDT. The limit of detection (LOD) of FICT was improved by 16-fold compared to RDT. FICT showed 85.29% sensitivity (29/34) (95% Confidence Interval [95% CI]: 68.94 to 95.05), 100% specificity (26/26) (95% CI: 86.78 to 100.00), and a strong correlation (kappa; 0. 92) compared with rRT-PCR (20 ≤ Ct ≤ 36). In contrast, RDT (Standard Diagnostics [SD] BIOLINE Influenza Ag A/ B/ A(H1N1) Pandemic) showed 55.88% sensitivity (19/34) (95% CI: 37.87 to 72.82), 100% specificity (26/26) (95% CI: 77.07 to 100), and had a fair correlation with rRT-PCR (kappa; 0. 75). FICT had better sensitivity than RDT (P < 0.01; McNemar’s test). Therefore, FICT has the potential to improve the quality of current rapid POCT for the diagnosis of influenza A/H1N1 infection.

Assessing the reporting quality of influenza outbreaks in the community

BACKGROUND

High-quality reporting of outbreak characteristics is fundamental to understand the behaviour of various strains of influenza virus and the impact of outbreak management strategies. However, few studies have systematically evaluated the quality of outbreak reporting.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic analysis and assessment for reporting quality of influenza outbreaks based on a modified version of the STROBE statement, and to examine characteristics associated with reporting quality.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted across 3 online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE) for reports of influenza outbreaks (pandemic H1N1, avian, seasonal). The quality of reports meeting our eligibility criteria was assessed using the Modified STROBE criteria and assigned a score of 30. Mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for comparisons of study characteristics.

RESULTS

Sixty-four outbreak reports were available for analyses. The average Modified STROBE score was 20/30. Peer-reviewed articles were associated with a better quality of reporting (MD 2.79, 95% CI 0.79-4.78). Likewise, reports from authors affiliated with public health agencies were associated with better quality than those from academic institutions (MD 1.65, 95% CI-0.27-3.56).

CONCLUSIONS

The development of explicit reporting guidelines specifically geared towards reporting of outbreak investigations proved to be useful. Providing information on patient characteristics, investigation details in introduction and results, as well as addressing limitations that could have biased the findings, were frequently missing in the published reports.