Impact of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations With Nonrandomized Designs Reporting Guideline: Ten Years On
Impact of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations With Nonrandomized Designs Reporting Guideline: Ten Years On
复制标题
DOI：
10.2105/ajph.2014.302195
复制
发表时间：
2014-11-01
影响因子：
12.7
通讯作者：
Anderson, Rob
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fuller, Thomas;Peters, Jaime;Anderson, Rob
目标。我们评估了作者和期刊编辑在期刊对作者的说明中如何使用非随机设计评估透明报告（TREND）报告指南。我们还评估了其对报告完整性和研究质量的影响。我们从引用TREND的出版物中提取了这些报告中如何使用TREND的数据；我们还提取了期刊对作者的指示信息。然后，我们对相关出版物进行了病例对照研究，以评估使用TREND.Results的影响。2004 - 2013年，TREND被引用412次，但明显应用于研究报告的只有47次。在61份给作者的说明样本中，有14次特别提到了TREND。一些证据表明，TREND的使用与更全面的报告和更高的研究质量评级有关。尽管TREND有潜在的应用和好处，但作者和期刊编辑似乎没有充分利用它。我们发现有证据表明，使用趋势可以有助于更透明和完整的研究报告。即使作者使用TREND进行报告，报告的完整性仍然不是最优的。
Objectives. We assessed how the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was used by authors and journal editors in journals' instructions to authors. We also evaluated its impact on reporting completeness and study quality.Methods. We extracted data from publications that cited TREND on how TREND was used in those reports; we also extracted information on journals' instructions to authors. We then undertook a case-control study of relevant publications to evaluate the impact of using TREND.Results. Between 2004 and 2013, TREND was cited 412 times, but it was only evidently applied to study reports 47 times. TREND was specifically mentioned 14 times in the sample of 61 instructions to authors. Some evidence suggested that use of TREND was associated with more comprehensive reporting and higher study quality ratings.Conclusions. TREND appeared to be underutilized by authors and journal editors despite its potential application and benefits. We found evidence that suggested that using TREND could contribute to more transparent and complete study reports. Even when authors reported using TREND, reporting completeness was still suboptimal.