Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial.
Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.d6783
复制
发表时间：
2011-11-22
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Vilardell M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cobo E;Cortés J;Ribera JM;Cardellach F;Selva-O'Callaghan A;Kostov B;García L;Cirugeda L;Altman DG;González JA;Sànchez JA;Miras F;Urrutia A;Fonollosa V;Rey-Joly C;Vilardell M
目的探讨基于STROBE和CONSORT等报告指南的附加审稿对稿件质量的影响。设计设盲随机试验。2008年5月至2009年4月提交给Medicina Clínica杂志的原始研究手稿，并被认为适合出版。干预对照组：仅进行常规同行评议。干预组：常规审查加上额外审查，寻找报告指南中缺失的项目。结果Mandarpt质量，采用5分制Likert量表进行评估（主要：总体质量;次要：论文中特定项目的平均质量）。主要分析比较了分配的组，校正基线因素后（协方差分析）;敏感性分析比较了审查的组。采用Likert量表评估对评审员建议的依从性。结果连续126篇常规审稿的论文中，34篇不适合发表。其余92篇论文被分配接受单独的常规审查（n=41）或额外的审查（n=51）。分配给常规审查组的4篇论文偏离了方案;根据报告指南对它们进行了额外审查。我们发现，额外评审组的稿件质量有所改善（分配比较，0.25，95%置信区间-0.05至0.54;评审比较，0.33，0.03至0.63）。与仅使用传统综述相比，使用额外综述的论文更多（22（43%）v 8（20%），差异23.6%（3.2%至44.0%），需要治疗的数量4.2（从2.3至31.2），相对风险2.21（1.10至4.44））。附加评论组的作者更倾向于传统评论的建议，而不是附加评论的建议（平均增加0.43 Likert点（0.19至0.67））。结论：基于报告指南的额外审查提高了手稿质量，尽管观察到的效果小于假设，也没有得到明确的证明。作者坚持更多的建议，从传统的审查比那些从额外的审查，在最新的研究阶段坚持高的方法标准的困难。为了提高论文质量和影响力，作者应该在研究开始时就了解报告指南的未来要求。 试验注册和方案尽管注册不包括同行评议试验，但方案设计已提交给申办的研究项目（Instituto de Salud卡洛斯III，PI 081903）。
Objective To investigate the effect of an additional review based on reporting guidelines such as STROBE and CONSORT on quality of manuscripts. Design Masked randomised trial. Population Original research manuscripts submitted to the Medicina Clínica journal from May 2008 to April 2009 and considered suitable for publication. Intervention Control group: conventional peer reviews alone. Intervention group: conventional review plus an additional review looking for missing items from reporting guidelines. Outcomes Manuscript quality, assessed with a 5 point Likert scale (primary: overall quality; secondary: average quality of specific items in paper). Main analysis compared groups as allocated, after adjustment for baseline factors (analysis of covariance); sensitivity analysis compared groups as reviewed. Adherence to reviewer suggestions assessed with Likert scale. Results Of 126 consecutive papers receiving conventional review, 34 were not suitable for publication. The remaining 92 papers were allocated to receive conventional reviews alone (n=41) or additional reviews (n=51). Four papers assigned to the conventional review group deviated from protocol; they received an additional review based on reporting guidelines. We saw an improvement in manuscript quality in favour of the additional review group (comparison as allocated, 0.25, 95% confidence interval –0.05 to 0.54; as reviewed, 0.33, 0.03 to 0.63). More papers with additional reviews than with conventional reviews alone improved from baseline (22 (43%) v eight (20%), difference 23.6% (3.2% to 44.0%), number needed to treat 4.2 (from 2.3 to 31.2), relative risk 2.21 (1.10 to 4.44)). Authors in the additional review group adhered more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews (average increase 0.43 Likert points (0.19 to 0.67)). Conclusions Additional reviews based on reporting guidelines improve manuscript quality, although the observed effect was smaller than hypothesised and not definitively demonstrated. Authors adhere more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews, showing difficulties in adhering to high methodological standards at the latest research phases. To boost paper quality and impact, authors should be aware of future requirements of reporting guidelines at the very beginning of their study. Trial registration and protocol Although registries do not include trials of peer review, the protocol design was submitted to sponsored research projects (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, PI081903).
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.b2535
发表时间：
2009-07-21
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Moher D;Liberati A;Tetzlaff J;Altman DG;PRISMA Group
通讯作者：
PRISMA Group
影响因子：
8.8
作者：
通讯作者：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
Bossuyt, PM;Reitsma, JB;de Vet, HCE
通讯作者：
de Vet, HCE
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Meng, Xiao-Li
通讯作者：
Meng, Xiao-Li
假阳性导致癌症流行病学：认识论谦虚的恳求。
影响因子：
10.3
作者：
Boffetta, Paolo;McLaughlin, Joseph K.;La Vecchia, Carlo;Tarone, Robert E.;Lipworth, Loren;Blot, William J.
通讯作者：
Blot, William J.