Search

Background The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]). Methods and findings An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1-9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process. Conclusions The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods., Author(s): Jamie J. Kirkham 1, Katherine Davis 1, Douglas G. Altman 2, Jane M. Blazeby 3, Mike Clarke 4, Sean Tunis 5, Paula R. Williamson 1,* Introduction The selection of [...]

Misuse of statistics in medical and sports science research is common and may lead to detrimental consequences to healthcare. Many authors, editors and peer reviewers of medical papers will not have expert knowledge of statistics or may be unconvinced about the importance of applying correct statistics in medical research. Although there are guidelines on reporting statistics in medical papers, a checklist on the more general and commonly seen aspects of statistics to assess when peer-reviewing an article is needed. In this article, we propose a CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) comprising 30 items related to the design and conduct, data analysis, reporting and presentation, and interpretation of a research paper. While CHAMP is primarily aimed at editors and peer reviewers during the statistical assessment of a medical paper, we believe it will serve as a useful reference to improve authors' and readers' practice in their use of statistics in medical research. We strongly encourage editors and peer reviewers to consult CHAMP when assessing manuscripts for potential publication. Authors also may apply CHAMP to ensure the validity of their statistical approach and reporting of medical research, and readers may consider using CHAMP to enhance their statistical assessment of a paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) were developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. The REMARK checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. A detailed paper was published explaining the rationale behind checklist items, providing positive examples and giving empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. REMARK provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference for the many issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general. Despite support for REMARK from major cancer journals, prognostic factor research studies remain poorly reported. To encourage dissemination and uptake of REMARK, we have produced this considerably abridged version of the detailed explanatory manuscript, which may also serve as a brief guide to key issues for investigators planning tumor marker prognostic studies. To summarize the current situation, more recent papers investigating the quality of reporting and related reporting guidelines are cited, but otherwise the literature is not updated. Another important impetus for this paper is that it serves as a basis for literal translations into other languages. Translations will help to bring key information to a larger audience world-wide. Many more details can be found in the original paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many reports of health research omit important information needed to assess their methodological robustness and clinical relevance. Without clear and complete reporting, it is not possible to identify flaws or biases, reproduce successful interventions, or use the findings in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/) promotes responsible reporting and the use of reporting guidelines to improve the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of health research. EQUATOR supports researchers by providing online resources and training. EQUATOR Oncology, a project funded by Cancer Research UK, aims to support cancer researchers reporting their research through the provision of online resources. In this article, our objective is to highlight reporting issues related to oncology research publications and to introduce reporting guidelines that are designed to aid high-quality reporting. We describe generic reporting guidelines for the main study types, and explain how these guidelines should and should not be used. We also describe 37 oncology-specific reporting guidelines, covering different clinical areas (e.g., haematology or urology) and sections of the report (e.g., methods or study characteristics); most of these are little-used. We also provide some background information on EQUATOR Oncology, which focuses on addressing the reporting needs of the oncology research community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Selective reporting of outcomes in clinical trials is a serious problem. We aimed to investigate the influence of the peer review process within biomedical journals on reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses within reports of randomised trials.Methods: Each month, PubMed (May 2014 to April 2015) was searched to identify primary reports of randomised trials published in six high-impact general and 12 high-impact specialty journals. The corresponding author of each trial was invited to complete an online survey asking authors about changes made to their manuscript as part of the peer review process. Our main outcomes were to assess: (1) the nature and extent of changes as part of the peer review process, in relation to reporting of the primary outcome(s) and/or primary statistical analysis; (2) how often authors followed these requests; and (3) whether this was related to specific journal or trial characteristics.Results: Of 893 corresponding authors who were invited to take part in the online survey 258 (29%) responded. The majority of trials were multicentre (n = 191; 74%); median sample size 325 (IQR 138 to 1010). The primary outcome was clearly defined in 92% (n = 238), of which the direction of treatment effect was statistically significant in 49%. The majority responded (1-10 Likert scale) they were satisfied with the overall handling (mean 8.6, SD 1.5) and quality of peer review (mean 8.5, SD 1.5) of their manuscript. Only 3% (n = 8) said that the editor or peer reviewers had asked them to change or clarify the trial's primary outcome. However, 27% (n = 69) reported they were asked to change or clarify the statistical analysis of the primary outcome; most had fulfilled the request, the main motivation being to improve the statistical methods (n = 38; 55%) or avoid rejection (n = 30; 44%). Overall, there was little association between authors being asked to make this change and the type of journal, intervention, significance of the primary outcome, or funding source. Thirty-six percent (n = 94) of authors had been asked to include additional analyses that had not been included in the original manuscript; in 77% (n = 72) these were not pre-specified in the protocol. Twenty-three percent (n = 60) had been asked to modify their overall conclusion, usually (n = 53; 88%) to provide a more cautious conclusion.Conclusion: Overall, most changes, as a result of the peer review process, resulted in improvements to the published manuscript; there was little evidence of a negative impact in terms of post hoc changes of the primary outcome. However, some suggested changes might be considered inappropriate, such as unplanned additional analyses, and should be discouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Incomplete and inadequate reporting is an avoidable waste that reduces the usefulness of research. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement is an evidence-based reporting guideline that aims to improve research transparency and reduce waste. In 2008, the CONSORT Group developed an extension to the original statement that addressed methodological issues specific to trials of nonpharmacologic treatments (NPTs), such as surgery, rehabilitation, or psychotherapy. This article describes an update of that extension and presents an extension for reporting abstracts of NPT trials. To develop these materials, the authors reviewed pertinent literature published up to July 2016; surveyed authors of NPT trials; and conducted a consensus meeting with editors, trialists, and methodologists. Changes to the CONSORT Statement extension for NPT trials include wording modifications to improve readers' understanding and the addition of 3 new items. These items address whether and how adherence of participants to interventions is assessed or enhanced, description of attempts to limit bias if blinding is not possible, and specification of the delay between randomization and initiation of the intervention. The CONSORT extension for abstracts of NPT trials includes 2 new items that were not specified in the original CONSORT Statement for abstracts. The first addresses reporting of eligibility criteria for centers where the intervention is performed and for care providers. The second addresses reporting of important changes to the intervention versus what was planned. Both the updated CONSORT extension for NPT trials and the CONSORT extension for NPT trial abstracts should help authors, editors, and peer reviewers improve the transparency of NPT trial reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement provides a minimum standard set of items to be reported in published clinical trials; it has received widespread recognition within the biomedical publishing community. This research aims to provide an update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact medical journals.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional examination of the online "Instructions to Authors" of 168 high impact factor (2012) biomedical journals between July and December 2014. We assessed whether the text of the "Instructions to Authors" mentioned the CONSORT Statement and any CONSORT extensions, and we quantified the extent and nature of the journals' endorsements of these. These data were described by frequencies. We also determined whether journals mentioned trial registration and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; other than in regards to trial registration) and whether either of these was associated with CONSORT endorsement (relative risk and 95 % confidence interval). We compared our findings to the two previous iterations of this survey (in 2003 and 2007). We also identified the publishers of the included journals.Results: Sixty-three percent (106/168) of the included journals mentioned CONSORT in their "Instructions to Authors." Forty-four endorsers (42 %) explicitly stated that authors "must" use CONSORT to prepare their trial manuscript, 38 % required an accompanying completed CONSORT checklist as a condition of submission, and 39 % explicitly requested the inclusion of a flow diagram with the submission. CONSORT extensions were endorsed by very few journals. One hundred and thirty journals (77 %) mentioned ICMJE, and 106 (63 %) mentioned trial registration.Conclusions: The endorsement of CONSORT by high impact journals has increased over time; however, specific instructions on how CONSORT should be used by authors are inconsistent across journals and publishers. Publishers and journals should encourage authors to use CONSORT and set clear expectations for authors about compliance with CONSORT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs.Methods and Findings: We searched MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014. Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria. Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate. We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews, and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs. We identified 682 SRs, suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade. The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China, the UK, or the US; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants. Meta-analysis was performed in 63% of SRs, mostly using standard pairwise methods. Study risk of bias/quality assessment was performed in 70% of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis (16%). Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs. Reporting quality was highly variable; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol, eligibility criteria relating to publication status, years of coverage of the search, a full Boolean search logic for at least one database, methods for data extraction, methods for study risk of bias assessment, a primary outcome, an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations, or the funding source of the SR. Cochrane SRs, which accounted for 15% of the sample, had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs. Reporting has generally improved since 2004, but remains suboptimal for many characteristics.Conclusions: An increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

David Moher and Douglas Altman outline four potential interventions that may improve the quality of peer-reviewed medical research publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Core outcome sets can increase the efficiency and value of research and, as a result, there are an increasing number of studies looking to develop core outcome sets (COS). However, the credibility of a COS depends on both the use of sound methodology in its development and clear and transparent reporting of the processes adopted. To date there is no reporting guideline for reporting COS studies. The aim of this programme of research is to develop a reporting guideline for studies developing COS and to highlight some of the important methodological considerations in the process. Methods/Design: The study will include a reporting guideline item generation stage which will then be used in a Delphi study. The Delphi study is anticipated to include two rounds. The first round will ask stakeholders to score the items listed and to add any new items they think are relevant. In the second round of the process, participants will be shown the distribution of scores for all stakeholder groups separately and asked to re-score. A final consensus meeting will be held with an expert panel and stakeholder representatives to review the guideline item list. Following the consensus meeting, a reporting guideline will be drafted and review and testing will be undertaken until the guideline is finalised. The final outcome will be the COS-STAR (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting) guideline for studies developing COS and a supporting explanatory document. Discussion: To assess the credibility and usefulness of a COS, readers of a COS development report need complete, clear and transparent information on its methodology and proposed core set of outcomes. The COS-STAR guideline will potentially benefit all stakeholders in COS development: COS developers, COS users, e.g. trialists and systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy-makers and patient groups. Discussion: To assess the credibility and usefulness of a COS, readers of a COS development report need complete, clear and transparent information on its methodology and proposed core set of outcomes. The COS-STAR guideline will potentially benefit all stakeholders in COS development: COS developers, COS users, e.g. trialists and systematic reviewers, journal editors, policy-makers and patient groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The quality of reporting clinical and preclinical research is not optimal. Reporting guidelines can help make reports of research more complete and transparent, thus increasing their value and making them more useful to all readers. Getting reporting guidelines into practice is complex and expensive, and involves several stakeholders, including prospective authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, guideline developers, and implementation scientists. Working together will help ensure their maximum uptake and penetration. We are all responsible for helping to ensure that all research is reported so completely that it is of value to everybody. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: Carl Moons and colleagues provide a checklist and background explanation for critically appraising and extracting data from systematic reviews of prognostic and diagnostic prediction modelling studies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]