Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.
Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2147/jmdh.s155103
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Samaan Z
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jin Y;Sanger N;Shams I;Luo C;Shahid H;Li G;Bhatt M;Zielinski L;Bantoto B;Wang M;Abbade LP;Nwosu I;Leenus A;Mbuagbaw L;Maaz M;Chang Y;Sun G;Levine MA;Adachi JD;Thabane L;Samaan Z
报告准则（例如，试验报告综合标准[CONSORT]声明）旨在改进报告标准，提高研究结果的透明度和可重复性。尽管这些指导方针很容易获得，但并不要求研究人员遵守这些指导方针。我们的目标是确定医学文献中报告质量的现状，并检查报告指南的遵守情况自报告指南制定以来是否有所改善。8项报告指南，如CONSORT、系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目（PRISMA）、加强流行病学观察性研究报告（STROBE）、荟萃分析报告质量（QUOROM）、诊断准确性报告标准（standard）、动物研究；研究了体内实验报告（arrival）、综合卫生经济评估报告标准（CHEERS）和流行病学观察性研究荟萃分析（MOOSE）。我们的纳入标准包括1996年1月至2016年9月间发表的综述，这些综述调查了临床试验、系统综述、观察性研究、荟萃分析、诊断准确性、经济评估和临床前动物研究等文献中报告指南的遵守情况。所有综述均在Web of Science、摘录医学数据库（EMBASE）、MEDLINE和护理与相关健康文献累积索引（CINAHL）中找到。采用设计的检索方法对26819项研究进行一般检索，筛选后纳入124项研究。我们发现纳入的研究中有87.9%报告报告指南的依从性不理想。与依从性差相关的因素包括非药物干预、发表年份和得出显著结果的试验。改善依从性与更好的研究设计相关，如分配隐蔽性、随机序列、大样本量、充分有力的研究、多作者、在支持指南的期刊上发表。我们的结论是，对报告准则的遵守程度仍然是次优的。期刊对报告指南的认可是重要的，也是值得推荐的。
Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines. We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Wang P;Xu Q;Sun Q;Fan FF;Guo XR;Guo F
通讯作者：
Guo F