From Checklists to Tools: Lowering the Barrier to Better Research Reporting

Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review

Background

Despite growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender considerations in health research, they are rarely integrated into research design and reporting. We sought to assess the integration of sex, as a biological attribute, and gender, as a socially constructed identity, in published reporting guidelines.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of published reporting guidelines listed on the EQUATOR website (www.equator-nework.org) from inception until December 2018. We selected all reporting guidelines (original and extensions) listed in the EQUATOR library. We used EndNote Citation Software to build a database of the statements of each guideline identified as a "full bibliographic reference" and retrieved the full texts. Reviewers independently extracted the data on use of sex and gender terms from the checklist/abstract/main text of guidelines. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis.

Results

A total of 407 reporting guidelines were included; they were published between 1995 and 2018. Of the 407 guidelines, 235 (57.7%) mentioned at least one of the sex- and gender-related words. In the checklist of the reporting guidelines (n = 363), “sex” and “gender” were mentioned in 50 (13.8%) and 40 (11%), respectively. Only one reporting guideline met our criteria (nonbinary, appropriate categorization, and non-interchangeability) for correct use of sex and gender concepts. Trends in the use of "sex" and "gender" in the checklists showed that the use of “sex” only started in 2003, while “gender” has been in use since 1996.

Conclusions

We assessed the integration of sex and gender in reporting guidelines based on the use of sex- and gender-related words. Our findings showed a low use and integration of sex and gender concepts and their incorrect use. Authors of reporting guidelines should reduce this gap for a better use of research knowledge.

Trial registration PROSPERO no. CRD42019136491.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13293-021-00404-0.

Omission of sex and gender considerations is a recurring deficiency in research design and reporting

Integration of sex and gender considerations in health research reporting guidelines is very low

Three criteria were used to assess correct use of sex and gender concepts

Only one reporting guideline met the three criteria

A call to action is made to address these deficiencies

A Tool to Encourage Minimum Reporting Guideline Uptake for Data Analysis in Metabolomics

Despite the proposal of minimum reporting guidelines for metabolomics over a decade ago, reporting on the data analysis step in metabolomics studies has been shown to be unclear and incomplete. Major omissions and a lack of logical flow render the data analysis' sections in metabolomics studies impossible to follow, and therefore replicate or even imitate. Here, we propose possible reasons why the original reporting guidelines have had poor adherence and present an approach to improve their uptake. We present in this paper an R markdown reporting template file that guides the production of text and generates workflow diagrams based on user input. This R Markdown template contains, as an example in this instance, a set of minimum information requirements specifically for the data pre-treatment and data analysis section of biomarker discovery metabolomics studies, (gleaned directly from the original proposed guidelines by Goodacre at al). These minimum requirements are presented in the format of a questionnaire checklist in an R markdown template file. The R Markdown reporting template proposed here can be presented as a starting point to encourage the data analysis section of a metabolomics manuscript to have a more logical presentation and to contain enough information to be understandable and reusable. The idea is that these guidelines would be open to user feedback, modification and updating by the metabolomics community via GitHub.

Using the RECORD guidelines to improve transparent reporting of studies based on routinely collected data

Transparent reporting of routinely-collected data studies is key to producing valid and reliable research that can inform decisions about patient care and health systems. This article discusses some of the unique challenges in using these data sources, and explains how the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data (RECORD) guidelines were developed to help researchers and journals to maintain a high level of quality in reporting of healthcare studies using routinely-collected data.

Data Mining Approach to Estimate the Duration of Drug Therapy from Longitudinal Electronic Medical Records

Background:

Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) from primary/ ambulatory care systems present a new and promising source of information for conducting clinical and translational research.

Objectives:

To address the methodological and computational challenges in order to extract reliable medication information from raw data which is often complex, incomplete and erroneous. To assess whether the use of specific chaining fields of medication information may additionally improve the data quality.

Methods:

Guided by a range of challenges associated with missing and internally inconsistent data, we introduce two methods for the robust extraction of patient-level medication data. First method relies on chaining fields to estimate duration of treatment (“chaining”), while second disregards chaining fields and relies on the chronology of records (“continuous”). Centricity EMR database was used to estimate treatment duration with both methods for two widely prescribed drugs among type 2 diabetes patients: insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists.

Results:

At individual patient level the “chaining” approach could identify the treatment alterations longitudinally and produced more robust estimates of treatment duration for individual drugs, while the “continuous” method was unable to capture that dynamics. At population level, both methods produced similar estimates of average treatment duration, however, notable differences were observed at individual-patient level.

Conclusion:

The proposed algorithms explicitly identify and handle longitudinal erroneous or missing entries and estimate treatment duration with specific drug(s) of interest, which makes them a valuable tool for future EMR based clinical and pharmaco-epidemiological studies. To improve accuracy of real-world based studies, implementing chaining fields of medication information is recommended.

The First Mediterranean Seminar on Science Writing, Editing and Publishing, Sarajevo, December 2-3, 2016

The First Mediterranean Seminar on Science Writing, Editing & Publishing (SWEP 2016) was held in Sarajevo, Bosnia & Herzegovina from 2nd to 3rd December 2016. It was organized by Academy of Medical Sciences of Bosnia and Herzegovina, running concurrent sessions as part of its Annual Meeting titled " "Days of AMNuBiH - Theory and Practice in Science Communication and Scientometrics". Hotel Bosnia in the city centre was the chosen venue. On the first day, nineteen presentations on various issues of science writing and publication ethics were delivered by speakers from Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia & Herzegovina and the UK (Asim Kurjak, Milivoj Boranić, Doncho Donev, Osman Sinanović, Miro Jakovljević, Enver Zerem, Dejan Milošević, Silva Dobrić, Srećko Gajović, Izet Mašić, Armen Yuri Gasparyan, Šekib Sokolović, Nermin Salkić, Selma Uzunović, Admir Kurtčehajić, Edin Begić and Floreta Kurti). Each presentation had a take-home message for novice and seasoned authors, encountering numerous problems in non-Anglophone research environment. Lecturers, who were internationally recognized editors of regional journals, generously shared their experience of adhering to the best ethical guidance. Elegant presentations by Srećko Gajović (Editor-in-Chief of the Croatian Medical Journal) and Armen Yuri Gasparyan (past Chief Editor of the European Science Editing) showcased their accomplishments that strengthened ties between authors from all over the world. Gasparyan reflected on educational resources of editorial associations, such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and called not just to declare the adherence to, but also to enforce their ethical guidance in daily practice. Editors of Medical Archives, Croatian Medica Journal, Vojnosanitetski Pregled, Psychiatria Danubina, Acta Informatica Medica, Materia Socio-Medica, The Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstretics and Gynecology, Acta Medica Saliniana and Medicinski Glasnik presented their editorial strategies aimed at attracting best authors and resolving problems with authorship, conflicts of interest, and plagiarism. Topical education on science writing and editing was considered as an inseparable part of continuing professional development in biomedicine. Armen Yuri Gasparyan (UK) was offered an opportunity to interact with more than 70 participants, attending the SWEP 2016 on the second day. The lecturer talked about author contributions, disclosures of conflicts of interests, plagiarism of ideas and words, research performance and impact indicators, and targeting ethical journals. Topics were presented in a way to help non-Anglophone authors, reviewers and editors avoid common ethical problems. Dr Gasparyan stressed the importance of regularly arranging such meetings across Balkan and Mediterranean countries to eradicate plagiarism and other forms research misconduct. The organizers of the SWEP 2016 awarded selected keynote speakers with certificates of lifetime achievement in journal editing, and decided to run the Seminar annually with support of Balkan and Mediterranean editors and publishers. The SWEP 2016 marked a turning point in the process of regional developments since all attending editors opted for nurturing enthusiasm of the organizers and launching the Mediterranean Association of Science Editors and Publishers (MASEP). The Seminar was a great success with its impressive scientific and social activities. It attracted more than 100 students, researchers, editors, and publishers from Bosnia & Herzegovina and neighbouring countries. Proceedings, in the form of short reports, were published in Acta Informatica Medica and archived in PubMed Central. New friendships were forged between regional experts in editing and young specialists during those unforgettable two days of intensive discussions and informal interactions (a-y).

Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015

Background

Although the number of reporting guidelines has grown rapidly, few have gone through an updating process. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy), published in 2003 to help improve the transparency and completeness of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, was recently updated in a systematic way. Here, we describe the steps taken and a justification for the changes made.

Results

A 4-member Project Team coordinated the updating process; a 14-member Steering Committee was regularly solicited by the Project Team when making critical decisions. First, a review of the literature was performed to identify topics and items potentially relevant to the STARD updating process. After this, the 85 members of the STARD Group were invited to participate in two online surveys to identify items that needed to be modified, removed from, or added to the STARD checklist. Based on the results of the literature review process, 33 items were presented to the STARD Group in the online survey: 25 original items and 8 new items; 73 STARD Group members (86 %) completed the first survey, and 79 STARD Group members (93 %) completed the second survey.Then, an in-person consensus meeting was organized among the members of the Project Team and Steering Committee to develop a consensual draft version of STARD 2015. This version was piloted in three rounds among a total of 32 expert and non-expert users. Piloting mostly led to rewording of items. After this, the update was finalized. The updated STARD 2015 list now consists of 30 items. Compared to the previous version of STARD, three original items were each converted into two new items, four original items were incorporated into other items, and seven new items were added.

Conclusions

After a systematic updating process, STARD 2015 provides an updated list of 30 essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014. Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria. Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate. We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews, and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs. We identified 682 SRs, suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade. The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China, the UK, or the US; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants. Meta-analysis was performed in 63% of SRs, mostly using standard pairwise methods. Study risk of bias/quality assessment was performed in 70% of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis (16%). Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs. Reporting quality was highly variable; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol, eligibility criteria relating to publication status, years of coverage of the search, a full Boolean search logic for at least one database, methods for data extraction, methods for study risk of bias assessment, a primary outcome, an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations, or the funding source of the SR. Cochrane SRs, which accounted for 15% of the sample, had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs. Reporting has generally improved since 2004, but remains suboptimal for many characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

An increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research.

Preparing manuscript: Scientific writing for publication

Publication has become a burning issue among Indian medical fraternity owing to certain academic and professional necessities. The large number of submissions to the anaesthesia journals has resulted in accumulation of too much below average scientific material. A properly written manuscript is the dream of every editor and reviewer. The art of preparing a manuscript can be acquired only by following certain basic rules and technical aspects, besides knowledge and skills. Before preparing the manuscript, a target journal should be considered. All the instructions to the authors pertaining to that particular journal should be followed meticulously before preparing the manuscript for submission. The basic structure of the manuscript to be followed can be summarised by the acronym IMRaD (introduction, methods, results and discussion). The current review article aims to highlight all those mandatory and desirable features which should be kept in consideration while preparing a scientific manuscript for publication.