publication . Article . 2017

Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol

David Blanco; Jamie J Kirkham; Douglas G. Altman; David Moher; Isabelle Boutron; Erik Cobo;
Open Access English
  • Published: 01 Nov 2017 Journal: BMJ Open, volume 7, issue 11, page e017551 (issn: 2044-6055, eissn: 2044-6055, Copyright policy)
Abstract
There is evidence that the use of some reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, is associated with improved completeness of reporting in health research. However, the current levels of adherence to reporting guidelines are suboptimal. Over the last few years, several actions aiming to improve compliance with reporting guidelines have been taken and proposed. We will conduct a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research that have been evaluated or suggested, in order to inform future interventions.
Subjects
free text keywords: Medical Publishing and Peer Review, Protocol, 1506, 1711, reporting guidelines, scoping review, adherence, Biomedical Research/standards, Guideline Adherence, Humans, Journal Impact Factor, Periodicals as Topic, Research Design, Research Report/standards, :Economia i organització d'empreses [Àrees temàtiques de la UPC], Health--Research, Medicina -- Recerca, reporting guidelines, completeness of reporting, peer review, General Medicine, Grey literature, Medicine, business.industry, business, Medical education, Psychological intervention, Cochrane Library, Data extraction, Statistical analysis, MEDLINE
Funded by
EC| MIROR
Project
MIROR
Methods in Research on Research
  • Funder: European Commission (EC)
  • Project Code: 676207
  • Funding stream: H2020 | MSCA-ITN-EJD
Validated by funder
18 references, page 1 of 2

1.EQUATOR Network. Library for health research reporting, 2011 www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting.

2.Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, et al Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ 2014;348:g3804 10.1136/bmj.g3804 24965222 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

3.Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006;185:263–7.16948622 [PubMed]

4.Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;11:MR000030 10.1002/14651858.MR000030.pub2 23152285 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

5.Bereza BG, Machado M, Einarson TR Assessing the reporting and scientific quality of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of treatments for anxiety disorders. Ann Pharmacother 2008;42:1402–9. 10.1345/aph.1L204 18728102 [PubMed] [DOI]

6.Froud R, Eldridge S, Diaz Ordaz K, et al Quality of cluster randomized controlled trials in oral health: a systematic review of reports published between 2005 and 2009. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2012;40(Suppl 1):3–14. 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00660.x 22369703 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

7.Fung AE, Palanki R, Bakri SJ, et al Applying the CONSORT and STROBE statements to evaluate the reporting quality of neovascular age-related macular degeneration studies. Ophthalmology 2009;116:286–96. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.014 19091408 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

8.Rios LP, Odueyungbo A, Moitri MO, et al Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93:3810–6. 10.1210/jc.2008-0817 18583463 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

9.Shea B, Bouter LM, Grimshaw JM, et al Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic re views. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. J Rheumatol 2006;33:9–15.16267878 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed]

10.Samaan Z, Mbuagbaw L, Kosa D, et al A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. J Multidiscip Healthc 2013;6:169–88. 10.2147/JMDH.S43952 23671390 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

11.Hopewell S, Boutron I, Altman DG, et al Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med 2016;14:199 10.1186/s12916-016-0736-x 27894295 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

12.Péron J, You B, Gan HK, et al Influence of statistician involvement on reporting of randomized clinical trials in medical oncology. Anticancer Drugs 2013;24:306–9. 10.1097/CAD.0b013e32835c3561 23221738 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

13.Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, et al Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 2012;344:e4178 10.1136/bmj.e4178 22730543 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

14.Shamseer L, Stevens A, Skidmore B, et al Does journal endorsement of reporting guidelines influence the completeness of reporting of h ealth research? A systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 2012;1:24 10.1186/2046-4053-1-24 22626029 [OpenAIRE] [PubMed] [DOI]

15.Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, et al“Scoping the scope” of a cochrane review. http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org (accessed 22 Jan 2017).

18 references, page 1 of 2
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue