Better reporting, better research: guidelines and guidance in PLoS Medicine

Requirements for Study Registration and Adherence to Reporting Guidelines in Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Reporting guidelines and study registration can minimize bias and improve the reporting quality of biomedical research, but may not be fully utilized. The objective of this study was to investigate the policies of surgery journals as for reporting guidelines and study registration and explore associated journal characteristic variables.

METHODS

Study samples were obtained from the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports (surgery category). The online guides for authors were browsed to identify which journals endorsed reporting guidelines and study registration. The predictors related to the endorsement were explored by using Chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-eight surgery journals were included in our study. One hundred and sixty-three journals (86.7%) endorsed reporting guidelines and 103 journals (54.8%) endorsed study registration. About reporting guidelines, ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) recommendations were the most frequently endorsed (n = 155, 82.4%) by journals, followed by CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement (n = 94, 50.0%). About study registration, randomized controlled trial registration was endorsed by 101 (53.7%) journals, whereas the systematic review registration was endorsed by only 9 journals (4.8%). The results of multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that not North America, higher JCR (Journal Citation Reports) rank journals were more likely to endorse reporting guidelines and study registration.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery journals frequently use reporting guidelines, but nearly half of journals did not require study registration. Implementing these two mechanisms can prevent bias, and their adoption should be strengthened by authors, reviewers and journal editors in surgery.

The natural history of conducting and reporting clinical trials: interviews with trialists

BACKGROUND

To investigate the nature of the research process as a whole, factors that might influence the way in which research is carried out, and how researchers ultimately report their findings.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews with authors of trials, identified from two sources: trials published since 2002 included in Cochrane systematic reviews selected for the ORBIT project; and trial reports randomly sampled from 14,758 indexed on PubMed over the 12-month period from August 2007 to July 2008.

RESULTS

A total of 268 trials were identified for inclusion, 183 published since 2002 and included in the Cochrane systematic reviews selected for the ORBIT project and 85 randomly selected published trials indexed on PubMed. The response rate from researchers in the former group was 21% (38/183) and in the latter group was 25% (21/85). Overall, 59 trialists were interviewed from the two different sources. A number of major but related themes emerged regarding the conduct and reporting of trials: establishment of the research question; identification of outcome variables; use of and adherence to the study protocol; conduct of the research; reporting and publishing of findings. Our results reveal that, although a substantial proportion of trialists identify outcome variables based on their clinical experience and knowing experts in the field, there can be insufficient reference to previous research in the planning of a new trial. We have revealed problems with trial recruitment: not reaching the target sample size, over-estimation of recruitment potential and recruiting clinicians not being in equipoise. We found a wide variation in the completeness of protocols, in terms of detailing study rationale, outlining the proposed methods, trial organisation and ethical considerations.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirm that the conduct and reporting of some trials can be inadequate. Interviews with researchers identified aspects of clinical research that can be especially challenging: establishing appropriate and relevant outcome variables to measure, use of and adherence to the study protocol, recruiting of study participants and reporting and publishing the study findings. Our trialists considered the prestige and impact factors of academic journals to be the most important criteria for selecting those to which they would submit manuscripts.

Better reporting of scientific studies: why it matters

The PLOS Medicine Editors announce the launch of a Reporting Guidelines Collection to coincide with the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, to be held September 8–10, 2013, in Chicago. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Reporting guidelines and the American Journal of Public Health's adoption of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses

Widespread recognition of the need to improve the science of published research, as well as the moral and ethical reasons for adequately reporting study results, has spurred recent interest in strengthening journal research reporting through the use of reporting guidelines. Reporting guidelines also provide information for readers to judge study quality. American Journal of Public Health previously adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Transparent Reporting of Evaluations With Nonrandomized Designs guidelines and recently endorsed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. In adopting these guidelines, the journal aims to support authors, reviewers, and editors in reporting and evaluating systematic reviews of public health policy and practice priorities.

Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network

Although current electronic methods of scientific publishing offer increased opportunities for publishing all research studies and describing them in sufficient detail, health research literature still suffers from many shortcomings. These shortcomings seriously undermine the value and utility of the literature and waste scarce resources invested in the research. In recent years there have been several positive steps aimed at improving this situation, such as a strengthening of journals' policies on research publication and the wide requirement to register clinical trials.The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative set up to advance high quality reporting of health research studies; it promotes good reporting practices including the wider implementation of reporting guidelines. EQUATOR provides free online resources http://www.equator-network.org supported by education and training activities and assists in the development of robust reporting guidelines. This paper outlines EQUATOR's goals and activities and offers suggestions for organizations and individuals involved in health research on how to strengthen research reporting.

Neglected external validity in reports of randomized trials: the example of hip and knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate data reporting related to external validity from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

All RCTs assessing pharmacologic treatments and nonpharmacologic treatments for hip and knee OA indexed between January 2002 and December 2006 were selected. A sample of 120 articles were randomly selected: 30 each assessing pharmacologic treatments, surgery or technical interventions, rehabilitation, and nonimplantable devices.

RESULTS

The country was clearly reported in 25 (21%) reports, the setting described in 40 (33%) reports, and the number of centers in 54 (45%). Details about the centers (volume of care) were given in 24 (20%) reports. Rates were lower for surgical trials for the country (3%), the setting (3%), the number of centers (13%), and details about the centers (7%). The intervention was adequately described in all pharmacologic reports and in >80% of rehabilitation reports. The technical procedure was given in all surgical intervention trial reports, but the type of anesthesia was reported in 4 (13%), preoperative care in 2 (7%), and postoperative care in 15 (50%). The device was described in 93% of device trial reports, but the manufacturer was reported in only 33%.

CONCLUSION

There is low reporting of data related to external validity in reports of RCTs assessing pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for hip and knee OA.