Pre-conference workshop: Training for better
research reporting
Freiburg, 11-12 October 2012
Responsibilities of editors and
reviewers
Ana Marušić, MD, PhD
Chair, Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health,
University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
Implementing reporting standards – before
and after
CONSORT adopters vs. Non-adopters had significantly better
reporting of method of sequence generation (risk ratio [RR],
1.67;95% CI, 1.19–2.33)
allocation concealment (RR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.37–2.00) overall
number of CONSORT items (standardised mean difference, 0.83;
95% CI, 0.46–1.19)
Implementing reporting standards – before
and after
Can OS, Yilmaz AA, Hasdogan M, Alkaya F, Turhan SC, Can MF, Alanoglu Z. Has
the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the
release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract
reporting? A survey of four high-profile anaesthesia journals. Eur J Anaesthesiol
2011 Jul;28(7):485-92.
527 abstracts in 4 journals
From pre-CONSORT to post-CONSORT guidelines for abstract reporting, there
were significant improvements in correctly identifying blinding (18.2-29%) and
harmful effects (31.6-42.1%).
Despite some promising improvements and inter-journal differences, the
overall quality of RCT abstracts and adherence to the CONSORT checklist for
abstracts remains poor.
Implementing reporting standards – single
country
Dasí F, Navarro-García MM, Jiménez-Heredia M, Magraner J, Viña JR, Pallardó
FV, Cervantes A, Morcillo E. Evaluation of the quality of publications on
randomized clinical trials using the consolidated standards of reporting trials
(CONSORT) statement guidelines in a Spanish tertiary hospital. J Clin
Pharmacol. 2012 Jul;52(7):1106-14.
40 RCTs published between 2002 and 2008
There was a marked increase in the number of articles and the
quality of the journals that published the CTs over time.
The title, abstract, introduction, and discussion sections received
the highest CONSORT scores and need little improvement. Poor
reporting of methodological details and discussion on limitations
and strengths were observed.
Implementing reporting standards – health
fields
Augestad KM, Berntsen G, Lassen K, Bellika JG, Wootton R, Lindsetmo RO; Study
Group of Research Quality in Medical Informatics and Decision Support (SQUID).
Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in medical informatics: a
systematic review of CONSORT adherence in RCTs on clinical decision support. J
Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jan-Feb;19(1):13-21.
32 RCTs on CDS
The mean CONSORT score was 30.75 (95% CI 27.0 to 34.5), median
score 32, range 21-38.
Fourteen trials (43%) did not clearly define the study objective, and
11 studies (34%) did not include a sample size calculation. Outcome
measures were adequately identified and defined in 23 (71%) trials;
adverse events or side effects were not reported in 20 trials (62%).
Implementing reporting standards – health
fields
Asher GN, Motsinger-Reif AA, Jonas DE, Viera AJ. Quality of reporting on
randomised controlled trials of auriculotherapy for pain. Acupunct Med. 2011
Jun;29(2):122-6.
15 studies – implementation of CONSORT and STRICTA
11 studies (74%) reported STRICTA items and eight studies (54%)
reported CONSORT items.
Implementing reporting standards – journals
Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors' implementation of
CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals:
interrupted time series analysis. BMJ. 2012 Jun 22;344:e4178.
955 abstracts from 5 journals w or w/o CONSORT impolementation
policy.
Journals with an active policy had higher mean number of items
reported (increase of 1.50 items; P=0.0037). At 23 months after
publication of the guidelines, the mean number of items reported
per abstract for the primary outcome was 5.41 of nine items, a 53%
increase compared with the expected level estimated on the basis of
pre-intervention trends.
Implementing reporting standards - journals
Implementing reporting standards:
experience from a single journal
J Pediat Surg – reporting guideline
J Pediat Surg – reporting guideline
Results
Mean global composite scores increased from 72.2 preGuidelines to 80.1 post-Guidelines (P<0.0001).
Scores increased in each subcategory:
Methods, 71.9 to 78.6 (P<0.0001)
Results, 77.2 to 83.0 (P=0.002)
Post-Guidelines implementation scores have increased
over time.
Standards on reporting standards
Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M, Seely D, Sampson M, Altman DG,
Schulz KF, Miller D, Simera I, Grimshaw J, Hoey J. Describing reporting
guidelines for health research: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol.
2011 Jul;64(7):718-42.
81 reporting guidelines for health research
Reporting-guideline developers provided little information
about the guideline development process. Developers of 50
(62%) reporting guidelines encouraged endorsement, most
commonly by including guidelines in journal instructions to
authors (n=18; 36%).
Reporting-guideline developers need to endeavor to
maximize the quality of their product.
Checklists?
sulako.blogspot.com
How to implement reporting guidelines in your journal: guidance from
EQUATOR
http://www.equator-network.org/index.aspx?o=4779
Yes, but who will do the checking?