Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review.
Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.g3804
复制
发表时间：
2014-06-25
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Moher D
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stevens A;Shamseer L;Weinstein E;Yazdi F;Turner L;Thielman J;Altman DG;Hirst A;Hoey J;Palepu A;Schulz KF;Moher D
目的评估期刊对报告准则的认可是否与卫生研究报告的完整性有关。设计系统性综述。数据来源报告指南来自已发表的系统性综述和EQUATOR网络（2011年10月）。使用纳入的报告指南（称为“评价”）（1990年至2011年10月; 2012年1月的增补检索）评估报告完整性的研究，根据报告指南名称，检索Medline、Embase和科克伦方法学注册库或Scopus。纳入了研究选择英文报告指南，该指南提供了明确的报告指南，描述了指南制定过程，并指出了共识制定过程的使用。CONSORT声明被排除，因为之前已对CONSORT依从性评价进行了审查。如果纳入的报告指南的英文或法文评价评估了研究报告的完整性作为主要目的，并且纳入的研究能够进行感兴趣的比较（即，期刊认可前后和/或认可期刊与非认可期刊），则这些评价合格。最初通过标题和摘要筛选纳入指南的潜在合格评价，然后作为全文报告。如果资格不明确，则联系评价的作者;必要时查阅期刊网站以获得认可信息。报告指南报告的完整性根据项目认可进行了分析，如果与作者的分析一致，则分析了平均总分。结果共纳入101份报告指南。在检索评价结果得到的15 249份记录中，确定了26项评价，这些评价评估了与核可9项报告准则有关的报告的完整性。其中，可以分析13项评估7项报告指南（BMJ经济检查表、危害CONSORT、PRISMA、QUOROM、STARD、STRICTA和STROBE）的评价。只有少数评价对报告准则项目进行了评估。结论101个健康研究报告指南（不包括CONSORT）中只有9个报告的完整性与期刊的认可有关。从七个报告准则的项目进行了定量分析，每个几个评价。没有足够的证据来确定期刊对报告指南的认可与已发表的健康研究报告的完整性之间的关系。期刊编辑和研究人员应该考虑前瞻性设计的对照研究，以提供更有力的证据。系统性综述注册未注册;目前没有已知的注册机构接受方法学系统性综述的方案。
Objective To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines. Design Systematic review. Data sources Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed “evaluations”) (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name. Study selection English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals). Data extraction Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals’ websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors’ analysis, a mean summed score. Results 101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15 249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations. Conclusions The completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals’ endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence. Systematic review registration Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
9.3
作者：
Bossuyt, PM;Reitsma, JB;de Vet, HCW
通讯作者：
de Vet, HCW
影响因子：
39.2
作者：
Boutron, Isabelle;Moher, David;Ravaud, Philippe
通讯作者：
Ravaud, Philippe
影响因子：
168.9
作者：
Chan, AW;Altman, DG
通讯作者：
Altman, DG
影响因子：
105.7
作者：
Campbell, MK;Elbourne, DR;Altman, DG
通讯作者：
Altman, DG
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Begg, C;Cho, M;Stroup, DF
通讯作者：
Stroup, DF