Search

BACKGROUND: Standardized and transparent reporting of surgical technique is the cornerstone of effective dissemination, implementation and improvement. However, current reporting of surgical techniques is inadequate. The existing guidelines potentially applied to guide surgical technique reporting are with a minimal highlight of the surgical technique, lack requirements explaining what extent and dimensions need to be described in detail, or are unlikely to extrapolate to a wide range of surgical techniques. This study aims to formulate a rigorous protocol to develop a surgical technique reporting checklist and standards (SUPER) that defines what a clear, comprehensive and detailed surgical technique report should be contained. METHODS: This protocol is designed following the classic guidance for developing reporting guidelines recommended by the EQUATOR network. RESULTS: The development team will consist of surgeons (~80%), methodologists, and journal editors. The draft checklist sources will include a scoping review of existing reporting guidelines related to surgical technique, surgical technique articles from 15 top journals published in the last year, and brainstorming by the multidisciplinary development team. The final SUPER checklist will be formed after three rounds of Delphi surveys, one round of face-to-face meeting, and a month-long pilot test. The SUPER checklist will be published as open-access and be used in combination with existing reporting guidelines related to surgical techniques (e.g., IDEAL). This protocol will steer the SUPER checklist's development, allowing us to further elaborate surgical technique reporting for all surgical specialties, and enabling a more favorable experience for surgeons, nurses, medical students, residents, editors, and reviewers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered at the EQUATOR network on December 18th, 2020. Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/. ispartof: GLAND SURGERY vol:10 issue:8 pages:2591-2599 ispartof: location:China (Republic : 1949- ) status: published

Background Health Services Research findings (HSR) reported in scientific publications may become part of the decision-making process on healthcare. This study aimed to explore associations between researcher’s individual, institutional, and scientific environment factors and the occurrence of questionable research practices (QRPs) in the reporting of messages and conclusions in scientific HSR publications. Methods We employed a mixed-methods study design. We identified factors possibly contributing to QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions through a literature review, 14 semi-structured interviews with HSR institutional leaders, and 13 focus-groups amongst researchers. A survey corresponding with these factors was developed and shared with 172 authors of 116 scientific HSR publications produced by Dutch research institutes in 2016. We assessed the included publications for the occurrence of QRPs. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to identify factors within individual, institutional, and environmental domains. Next, we conducted bivariate analyses using simple Poisson regression to explore factors’ association with the number of QRPs in the assessed HSR publications. Factors related to QRPs with a p-value < .30 were included in four multivariate models tested through a multiple Poisson regression. Results In total, 78 (45%) participants completed the survey (51.3% first authors and 48.7% last authors). Twelve factors were included in the multivariate analyses. In all four multivariate models, a higher score of “pressure to create societal impact” (Exp B = 1.28, 95% CI [1.11, 1.47]), was associated with higher number of QRPs. Higher scores on “specific training” (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.77–0.94]) and “co-author conflict of interest” (Exp B = 0.85, 95% CI [0.75–0.97]) factors were associated with a lower number of QRPs. Stratification between first and last authors indicated different factors were related to the occurrence of QRPs for these groups. Conclusion Experienced pressure to create societal impact is associated with more QRPs in the reporting of messages and conclusions in HSR publications. Specific training in reporting messages and conclusions and awareness of co-author conflict of interests are related to fewer QRPs. Our results should stimulate awareness within the field of HSR internationally on opportunities to better support reporting in scientific HSR publications.

Background Public or patient versions of guidelines (PVGs) are derivative documents that “translate” recommendations and their rationale from clinical guidelines for health professionals into a more easily understandable and usable format for patients and the public. PVGs from different groups and organizations vary considerably in terms of quality of their reporting. In order to address this issue, we aimed to develop a reporting checklist for developers of PVGs and other potential users. Methods First, we collected a list of potential items through reviewing a sample of PVGs, existing guidance for developing and reporting PVGs or other similar evidence-based patient tools, as well as qualitative studies on original studies of patients’ needs about the content and/or reporting of information in PVGs or similar evidence-based patient tools. Second, we conducted a two-round Delphi consultation to determine the level of consensus on the items to be included in the final reporting checklist. Third, we invited two external reviewers to provide comments on the checklist. Results We generated the initial list of 45 reporting items based on a review of a sample of 30 PVGs, four PVG guidance documents, and 46 relevant studies. After the two-round Delphi consultation, we formed a checklist of 17 items grouped under 12 topics for reporting PVGs. Conclusion The RIGHT-PVG reporting checklist provides an international consensus on the important criteria for reporting PVGs.

Background Statistics are frequently used in health advocacy to attract attention, but are often misinterpreted. The Figure Interpretation Assessment Tool–Health (FIAT-Health) 1.0 was developed to support systematic assessment of the interpretation of figures on health and health care. This study aimed to test and evaluate the FIAT-Health 1.0 amongst its intended user groups, and further refine the tool based on our results. Methods Potential users (N = 32) were asked to assess one publicly reported figure using the FIAT-Health 1.0, and to justify their assessments and share their experience in using the FIAT-Health. In total four figures were assessed. For each figure, an expert on the specific topic (N = 4) provided a comparative assessment. The consistency of the answers was calculated, and answers to the evaluation questions were qualitatively analysed. A qualitative comparative analysis of the justifications for assessment by the experts and potential users was made. Based on the results, a new version of the FIAT-Health was developed and tested by employees (N = 27) of the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), and approved by the project’s advisory group. In total sixty-three participants contributed. Results Potential users using the FIAT-Health 1.0 and experts gave similar justifications for their assessments. The justifications provided by experts aligned with the items of the FIAT-Health. Seventeen out of twenty-six dichotomous questions were consistently answered by the potential users. Numerical assessment questions showed inconsistencies in how potential users responded. In the evaluation, potential users most frequently mentioned that thanks to its structured approach, the FIAT-Health contributed to their awareness of the main characteristics of the figure (n = 14), but they did find the tool complex (n = 11). The FIAT-Health 1.0 was revised from a scoring instrument into a critical appraisal tool: the FIAT-Health 2.0, which was tested and approved by employees of the RIVM and the advisory group. Conclusion The tool was refined according to the results of the test and evaluation, transforming the FIAT-Health from a quantitative scoring instrument into an online qualitative appraisal tool that has the potential to aid the better interpretation and public reporting of statistics on health and healthcare. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0797-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Lung ultrasound is a useful tool for the assessment of patients with both acute and chronic heart failure, but the use of different image acquisition methods, inconsistent reporting of the technique employed and variable quantification of 'B-lines,' have all made it difficult to compare published reports. We therefore need to ensure that future studies utilizing lung ultrasound in the assessment of heart failure adopt a standardized approach to reporting the quantification of pulmonary congestion. Strategies to improve patient care by use of lung ultrasound in the assessment of heart failure have been difficult to develop. In the present document, key aspects of standardization are discussed, including equipment used, number of chest zones assessed, the method of quantifying B-lines, the presence and timing of additional investigations (e.g. natriuretic peptides and echocardiography) and the impact of therapy. This consensus report includes a checklist to provide standardization in the preparation, review and analysis of manuscripts. This will serve as a guide for investigators and clinicians and enhance the quality and transparency of lung ultrasound research.

Use of this checklist by authors and reviewers will improve quality and transparency in reporting randomized clinical trials of pain treatments., Introduction: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard when assessing the efficacy of interventions because randomization of treatment assignment minimizes bias in treatment effect estimates. However, if RCTs are not performed with methodological rigor, many opportunities for bias in treatment effect estimates remain. Clear and transparent reporting of RCTs is essential to allow the reader to consider the opportunities for bias when critically evaluating the results. To promote such transparent reporting, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group has published a series of recommendations starting in 1996. However, a decade after the publication of the first CONSORT guidelines, systematic reviews of clinical trials in the pain field identified a number of common deficiencies in reporting (eg, failure to identify primary outcome measures and analyses, indicate clearly the numbers of participants who completed the trial and were included in the analyses, or report harms adequately). Objectives: To provide a reporting checklist specific to pain clinical trials that can be used in conjunction with the CONSORT guidelines to optimize RCT reporting. Methods: Qualitative review of a diverse set of published recommendations and systematic reviews that addressed the reporting of clinical trials, including those related to all therapeutic indications (eg, CONSORT) and those specific to pain clinical trials. Results: A checklist designed to supplement the content covered in the CONSORT checklist with added details relating to challenges specific to pain trials or found to be poorly reported in recent pain trials was developed. Conclusion: Authors and reviewers of analgesic RCTs should consult the CONSORT guidelines and this checklist to ensure that the issues most pertinent to pain RCTs are reported with transparency.

IntroductionPatient and public versions of guidelines (PVGs) can help with individual decision making and enhance the patient–clinician relationship by providing easily understandable and reliable information. An increasing number of guideline organisations are developing PVGs. However, the reporting of PVGs by different groups and organisations varies widely. This study aims to develop a reporting checklist for PVGs for healthcare.Methods and analysisWe will develop the PVG reporting checklist as an extension of the Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement. We will build on the methods recommended by the EQUATOR network, which is our starting point. We will conduct a literature review, establish an international multidisciplinary team, run a modified Delphi process to identify the reporting items and pilot test the draft reporting checklist. We plan to update the checklist every 3 years.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval and patient consent are not required since this study will not undertake any formal data collection involving humans or animals. The results of this protocol will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.Trial registrationWe registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network (http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#84).

Background Influenced by an important paper by Michie et al., outlining the rationale and requirements for detailed reporting of behavior change interventions now required by Implementation Science, we created and refined a checklist to operationalize the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations in systematic reviews. The WIDER recommendations provide a framework to identify and provide detailed reporting of the essential components of behavior change interventions in order to facilitate replication, further development, and scale-up of the interventions. Findings The checklist was developed, applied, and improved over the course of four systematic reviews of knowledge translation (KT) strategies in a variety of healthcare settings conducted by Scott and associates. The checklist was created as one method of operationalizing the work of the WIDER in order to facilitate comparison across heterogeneous studies included in these systematic reviews. Numerous challenges were encountered in the process of creating and applying the checklist across four stages of development. The resulting improvements have produced a ‘user-friendly’ and replicable checklist to assess the quality of reporting of KT interventions in systematic reviews using the WIDER recommendations. Conclusions With journals, such as Implementation Science, using the WIDER recommendations as publication requirements for evaluation reports of behavior change intervention studies, it is crucial to find methods of examining, measuring, and reporting the quality of reporting. This checklist is one approach to operationalize the WIDER recommendations in systematic review methodology.