Search

Abstract Background In recent years, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has significantly increased; however, the reporting of PPI remains poor. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was developed to enhance the quality and consistency of PPI reporting. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the frequency and quality of PPI reporting in patient safety (PS) research using the GRIPP2 checklist. Methods Searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2018 to December, 2023. Studies on PPI in PS research were included. We included empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and case studies. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English were included. The quality of PPI reporting was assessed using the short form of the (GRIPP2-SF) checklist. Results A total of 8561 studies were retrieved from database searches, updates, and reference checks, of which 82 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Major PS topics were related to medication safety, general PS, and fall prevention. Patient representatives, advocates, patient advisory groups, patients, service users, and health consumers were the most involved. The main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials. Only 6.1% (n = 5) of the studies reported PPI as per the GRIPP2 checklist. Regarding the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF criteria, our findings show sub-optimal reporting mainly due to failures in: critically reflecting on PPI in the study; reporting the aim of PPI in the study; and reporting the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall. Conclusions Our review shows a low frequency of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist. Furthermore, it reveals a sub-optimal quality in PPI reporting following GRIPP2-SF items. Researchers, funders, publishers, and journals need to promote consistent and transparent PPI reporting following internationally developed reporting guidelines such as the GRIPP2. Evidence-based guidelines for reporting PPI should be encouraged and supported as it helps future researchers to plan and report PPI more effectively. Trial registration The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023450715).

BackgroundAlthough healthcare is delivered in inherently multilevel contexts, implementation science has no widely endorsed methodological standards defining the characteristics of rigorous, multilevel implementation research. We identify and describe eight characteristics of high-quality, multilevel implementation research to encourage discussion, spur debate, and guide decision-making around study design and methodological issues.RecommendationsImplementation researchers who conduct rigorous multilevel implementation research demonstrate the following eight characteristics. First, they map and operationalize the specific multilevel context for defined populations and settings. Second, they define and state the level of each construct under study. Third, they describe how constructs relate to each other within and across levels. Fourth, they specify the temporal scope of each phenomenon at each relevant level. Fifth, they align measurement choices and construction of analytic variables with the levels of theories selected (and hypotheses generated, if applicable). Sixth, they use a sampling strategy consistent with the selected theories or research objectives and sufficiently large and variable to examine relationships at requisite levels. Seventh, they align analytic approaches with the chosen theories (and hypotheses, if applicable), ensuring that they account for measurement dependencies and nested data structures. Eighth, they ensure inferences are made at the appropriate level. To guide implementation researchers and encourage debate, we present the rationale for each characteristic, actionable recommendations for operationalizing the characteristics in implementation research, a range of examples, and references to make the characteristics more usable. Our recommendations apply to all types of multilevel implementation study designs and approaches, including randomized trials, quantitative and qualitative observational studies, and mixed methods.ConclusionThese eight characteristics provide benchmarks for evaluating the quality and replicability of multilevel implementation research and promote a common language and reference points. This, in turn, facilitates knowledge generation across diverse multilevel settings and ensures that implementation research is consistent with (and appropriately leverages) what has already been learned in allied multilevel sciences. When a shared and integrated description of what constitutes rigor is defined and broadly communicated, implementation science is better positioned to innovate both methodologically and theoretically.

Objective: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is an important data source for observational studies. While there are guides to ensure appropriate study reporting, there has been no evaluation of NSQIP studies in vascular surgery. We sought to evaluate the adherence of vascular-surgery related NSQIP studies to best reporting practices. Methods: In January 2022, we queried PubMed for all vascular surgery NSQIP studies. We used the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Health Data (RECORD) statement and the JAMA Surgery (JAMA-Surgery) checklist to assess reporting methodology. We also extracted the Journal Impact Factor (IF) of each article. Results: One hundred and fifty-nine studies published between 2002 and 2022 were identified and analyzed. The median score on the RECORD statement was 6 out of 8. The most commonly missed RECORD statement items were describing any validation of codes and providing data cleaning information. The median score on the JAMA-Surgery checklist was 2 out of 7. The most commonly missed JAMA-Surgery checklist items were identifying competing risks, using flow charts to help visualize study populations, having a solid research question and hypothesis, identifying confounders, and discussing the implications of missing data. We found no difference in the reporting methodology of studies published in high vs low IF journals. Conclusion: Vascular surgery studies using NSQIP data demonstrate poor adherence to research reporting standards. Critical areas for improvement include identifying competing risks, including a solid research question and hypothesis, and describing any validation of codes. Journals should consider requiring authors use reporting guides to ensure their articles have stringent reporting methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Mixed methods research (MMR) integrates quantitative and qualitative methods throughout the research process to answer complex research questions. MMR designs align with the guiding frameworks of patient-centered care and social determinants of health by effectively examining the role of contextual factors and human experiences in influencing health and rehabilitation outcomes. Reporting standards and critical appraisal tools ensure the quality and transparency of the research process. MMR standards exist; yet, there is a need for reporting guidelines and an appraisal tool that meets field standards, is applicable across rehabilitation fields of study, and can accommodate the range of possibilities for combining research approaches and methods. Methods Mixed Methods Reporting in Rehabilitation & Health Sciences (MMR-RHS) was developed using a systematic consensus-building process in accordance with published guidance and was preregistered with the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Network. MMR-RHS evolved through a sequence of steps, including extensive literature review, expert consultation, stakeholder feedback, pilot testing, and tool refinement. Results MMR-RHS consists of 20 criteria that align with field standards for rigor and transparency, with an emphasis on integration throughout the research process, a key component of MMR. Conclusions A systematic process was utilized to develop the reporting standards and an appraisal tool for MMR in rehabilitation and health science. The tool is comprehensive, includes a set of criteria grounded in MMR literature, and is flexible for application to a range of MMR designs commonly seen in rehabilitation research. Impact The MMR-RHS may improve the quality and transparency of MMR by supporting investigators, authors, reviewers, and editors during project development, manuscript preparation, and critical review. The tool may assist readers in critical appraisal, knowledge translation, and application of published MMR findings. Ultimately, the MMR-RHS may help legitimize mixed methods in rehabilitation and health research, an important step toward understanding the complexities of health care, patient outcomes, and evolving societal health needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Although healthcare is delivered in inherently multilevel contexts, implementation science has no widely endorsed methodological standards defining the characteristics of rigorous, multilevel implementation research. We identify and describe eight characteristics of high-quality, multilevel implementation research to encourage discussion, spur debate, and guide decision-making around study design and methodological issues. Recommendations Implementation researchers who conduct rigorous multilevel implementation research demonstrate the following eight characteristics. First, they map and operationalize the specific multilevel context for defined populations and settings. Second, they define and state the level of each construct under study. Third, they describe how constructs relate to each other within and across levels. Fourth, they specify the temporal scope of each phenomenon at each relevant level. Fifth, they align measurement choices and construction of analytic variables with the levels of theories selected (and hypotheses generated, if applicable). Sixth, they use a sampling strategy consistent with the selected theories or research objectives and sufficiently large and variable to examine relationships at requisite levels. Seventh, they align analytic approaches with the chosen theories (and hypotheses, if applicable), ensuring that they account for measurement dependencies and nested data structures. Eighth, they ensure inferences are made at the appropriate level. To guide implementation researchers and encourage debate, we present the rationale for each characteristic, actionable recommendations for operationalizing the characteristics in implementation research, a range of examples, and references to make the characteristics more usable. Our recommendations apply to all types of multilevel implementation study designs and approaches, including randomized trials, quantitative and qualitative observational studies, and mixed methods. Conclusion These eight characteristics provide benchmarks for evaluating the quality and replicability of multilevel implementation research and promote a common language and reference points. This, in turn, facilitates knowledge generation across diverse multilevel settings and ensures that implementation research is consistent with (and appropriately leverages) what has already been learned in allied multilevel sciences. When a shared and integrated description of what constitutes rigor is defined and broadly communicated, implementation science is better positioned to innovate both methodologically and theoretically.

In March 2019, SmartTots, a public-private partnership between the US Food and Drug Administration and the International Anesthesia Research Society, hosted a meeting attended by research experts, anaesthesia journal editors, and government agency representatives to discuss the continued need for rigorous preclinical research and the importance of establishing reporting standards for the field of anaesthetic perinatal neurotoxicity. This group affirmed the importance of preclinical research in the field, and welcomed novel and mechanistic approaches to answer some of the field's largest questions. The attendees concluded that summarising the benefits and disadvantages of specific model systems, and providing guidance for reporting results, would be helpful for designing new experiments and interpreting results across laboratories. This expert opinion report is a summary of these discussions, and includes a focused review of current animal models and reporting standards for the field of perinatal anaesthetic neurotoxicity. This will serve as a practical guide and road map for novel and rigorous experimental work.

Abstract Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, some studies describing different aspects of the infection included very similar participants, rising suspicion about double reporting. We aimed to evaluate the Gantt chart as a tool to highlight possible double reporting. The chart is routinely used in business applications to depict tasks of a project, by plotting horizontal bars against time, showing their time span and overlaps. Methods All case reports and case series of pregnant women with COVID-19, published by July 15, 2020, were included. Initial and final dates of participants’ enrollment, country, city, hospital, and number of pregnancies were plotted in the Gantt chart. Bars stand for enrollment dates of each study, according to hospital and city, thus allowing comparisons. Results We included 116 articles in the present analysis. The Gantt chart highlighted papers in which some participants were likely the same, thus allowing easier identification of double reporting of cases. Combining all information and pregnancy characteristics and outcomes helped to recognize duplications when the authors did not acknowledged the previous publication. Conclusions Unintended double reporting may occur, especially in exceptional times. The Gantt chart may help researchers to visually identify potential duplications, thus avoiding biased estimates in systematic reviews or meta-analysis.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) has become an increasingly popular data source for retrospective observational vascular surgery studies. There are published guidelines on the reporting of data in such studies to promote transparency and rigor, but these have not been used to evaluate studies using VQI data. Our objective was to appraise the methodological reporting quality of studies using VQI data by evaluating their adherence to these guidelines. The Society for Vascular Surgery VQI publication repository was queried for all articles published in 2020. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Health Data (RECORD) statement and the Journal of American Medical Association-Surgical Section (JAMA-Surgery) checklist were utilized to assess the quality of each article's reporting. Five and three items from the RECORD statement and JAMA-Surgery checklist were excluded, respectively, because they were either inapplicable or nonassessable. Journal impact factor (IF) was queried for each article to elucidate any difference in reporting standards between high and low IF journals. Ninety studies were identified and analyzed. The median score on the RECORD checklist was 6 (of 8). The most commonly missed item was discussing data cleaning methods (93% missed). The median score on the JAMA-Surgery checklist was 3 (of 7). The most commonly missed items were the identification of competing risks (98% missed), the use of a flow chart to clearly define sample exclusion and inclusion criteria (84% missed), and the inclusion of a solid research question and hypothesis (81% missed). There were no differences in JAMA-Surgery checklist or RECORD statement median scores among studies published in low vs high IF journals. Studies using VQI data demonstrate a poor to moderate adherence to reporting standards. Key areas for improvement in research reporting include articulating a clear hypothesis, using flow charts to clearly define inclusion and exclusion criteria, identifying competing risks, and discussing data cleaning methods. Additionally, future efforts should center on creating tailored instruments to better guide reporting in studies using VQI data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background When publishing qualitative research in international journals, researchers studying non‐English‐speaking participants provide quotes in English language. This is an issue of increasing concern given the need to be rigorous to represent a diversity of participants within their context, beyond how language (alone) situates them. Aim To argue for providing English and native language quotes in qualitative research reports. Design Discussion. Methods This paper is based on the literature on use of quotes and translation in qualitative research and authors’ experiences of publishing qualitative research. Results Provision of native and English language quotes may allow for greater transparency of findings, thereby reflecting that the researchers adequately captured the socially and culturally dependent experiences of participants. Conclusions Presentation of findings with eloquent quotes serves as the gateway into the sociocultural experiences of individuals. We argued against the norm of providing translated quotes in qualitative reports and build a case for the provision of native as well as English language quotes to promote cross‐cultural understanding.

Research information management (RIM) and reporting is an emerging, heterogeneous field of work for which there is currently no systematic overview of the performed tasks and required competencies. Such an overview would be valuable for training, further education and recruiting. This paper presents data on task areas and competency requirements from a national survey of personnel responsible for RIM, CRIS management and reporting in Germany (N =224). With the help of a factor-analytical design, we were able to identify task profiles, such as System development & data modeling and Communication with stakeholders. The task profiles were then compared with a competency model which we developed to support further education and recruiting in research information management. Implications for further development of the competency model are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plain English summary Checklists (such as the GRIPP2) have been proposed as a way to improve how research papers report patient and public involvement in research projects. We were recently asked to complete a GRIPP2 as part of a peer review process, and it felt divisive. AB—a service user researcher—was just as much a part of the research team as was BS—a critical health psychologist. However, the role of BS in the research did not have to be justified or reported in the same way that was being asked of AB. A further concern about being required to use the checklist was that it did not necessarily lead to better reporting. Rather, it created a false sense of objectivity about patient and public involvement, and this might serve to hide power imbalances and tokenism in the research process. We recommend that instead of relying on such checklists, that researchers, reviewers, editors and readers reflect on patient and public involvement processes and the ways in which these are reported. We also make recommendations to make future iterations of the GRIPP more inclusive.

Background: The mitigation of unfair and avoidable differences in health is an increasing global priority. Observational studies including cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies tend to report social determinants of health which could inform evidence syntheses on health equity and social justice. However, the extent of reporting and analysis of equity in equity-relevant observational studies is unknown. Methods: We define studies which report outcomes for populations at risk of experiencing inequities as “equity-relevant”. Using a random sampling technique we will identify 320 equity-relevant observational studies published between 1 January 2020 to 27 April 2022 by searching the MEDLINE database. We will stratify sampling by 1) studies in high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) according to the World Bank classification, 2) studies focused on COVID and those which are not, 3) studies focused on populations at risk of experiencing inequities and those on general populations that stratify their analyses. We will use the PROGRESS framework which stands for place of residence, race or ethnicity, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital, to identify dimensions where inequities may exist. Using a previously developed data extraction form we will pilot-test on eligible studies and revise as applicable. Conclusions: The proposed methodological assessment of reporting will allow us to systematically understand the current reporting and analysis practices for health equity in observational studies. The findings of this study will help inform the development of the equity extension for the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, some studies describing different aspects of the infection included very similar participants, rising suspicion about double reporting. We aimed to evaluate the Gantt chart as a tool to highlight possible double reporting. The chart is routinely used in business applications to depict tasks of a project, by plotting horizontal bars against time, showing their time span and overlaps. Methods: All case reports and case series of pregnant women with COVID-19, published by July 15, 2020, were included. Initial and final dates of participants' enrollment, country, city, hospital, and number of pregnancies were plotted in the Gantt chart. Bars stand for enrollment dates of each study, according to hospital and city, thus allowing comparisons. Results: We included 116 articles in the present analysis. The Gantt chart highlighted papers in which some participants were likely the same, thus allowing easier identification of double reporting of cases. Combining all information and pregnancy characteristics and outcomes helped to recognize duplications when the authors did not acknowledged the previous publication. Conclusions: Unintended double reporting may occur, especially in exceptional times. The Gantt chart may help researchers to visually identify potential duplications, thus avoiding biased estimates in systematic reviews or meta-analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. Methods These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. Results The main recommendations are that research institutions should: 1) develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; 2) release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; 3) take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; 4) work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: 1) respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; 2) have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; 3) pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; 4) retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. Conclusions Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases.

Background: With the growing excitement of the potential benefits of using machine learning and artificial intelligence in medicine, the number of published clinical prediction models that use these approaches has increased. However, there is evidence (albeit limited) that suggests that the reporting of machine learning--specific aspects in these studies is poor. Further, there are no reviews assessing the reporting quality or broadly accepted reporting guidelines for these aspects. Objective: This paper presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the reporting quality of machine learning--specific aspects in studies that use machine learning to develop clinical prediction models. Methods: We will include studies that use a supervised machine learning algorithm to develop a prediction model for use in clinical practice (ie, for diagnosis or prognosis of a condition or identification of candidates for health care interventions). We will search MEDLINE for studies published in 2019, pseudorandomly sort the records, and screen until we obtain 100 studies that meet our inclusion criteria. We will assess reporting quality with a novel checklist developed in parallel with this review, which includes content derived from existing reporting guidelines, textbooks, and consultations with experts. The checklist will cover 4 key areas where the reporting of machine learning studies is unique: modelling steps (order and data used for each step), model performance (eg, reporting the performance of each model compared), statistical methods (eg, describing the tuning approach), and presentation of models (eg, specifying the predictors that contributed to the final model). Results: We completed data analysis in August 2021 and are writing the manuscript. We expect to submit the results to a peer-reviewed journal in early 2022. Conclusions: This review will contribute to more standardized and complete reporting in the field by identifying areas where reporting is poor and can be improved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of ABI Technik is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: When publishing qualitative research in international journals, researchers studying non‐English‐speaking participants provide quotes in English language. This is an issue of increasing concern given the need to be rigorous to represent a diversity of participants within their context, beyond how language (alone) situates them. Aim: To argue for providing English and native language quotes in qualitative research reports. Design: Discussion. Methods: This paper is based on the literature on use of quotes and translation in qualitative research and authors' experiences of publishing qualitative research. Results: Provision of native and English language quotes may allow for greater transparency of findings, thereby reflecting that the researchers adequately captured the socially and culturally dependent experiences of participants. Conclusions: Presentation of findings with eloquent quotes serves as the gateway into the sociocultural experiences of individuals. We argued against the norm of providing translated quotes in qualitative reports and build a case for the provision of native as well as English language quotes to promote cross‐cultural understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There are increasing calls for patient involvement in sharing health research results, but no evidence-based recommendations to guide such involvement. Our objectives were to: (1) conduct a systematic review of the evidence on patient involvement in results sharing, (2) propose evidence-based recommendations to help maximize benefits and minimize risks of such involvement and (3) conduct this project with patient authors. Methods To avoid research waste, we verified that no systematic reviews were registered or published on this topic. We co-created, with patients, a PRISMA-P–compliant protocol. We included peer-reviewed publications reporting the effects of patient involvement in preparing peer-reviewed publications or results summaries from health research studies. We searched (9/10/2017) MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and secondary information sources (until 11/06/2018). We assessed the risk of bias in eligible publications and extracted data using standardized processes. To evaluate patient involvement in this project, we co-created a Patient Authorship Experience Tool. Results All nine eligible publications reported on patient involvement in preparing publications; none on preparing results summaries. Evidence quality was moderate. A qualitative synthesis of evidence indicated the benefits of patient involvement may outweigh the risks. We have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks when involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications. The recommendations focus on practical actions patient and non-patient authors can take before (10 recommendations), during (7 recommendations) and after (4 recommendations) manuscript development. Using the Patient Authorship Experience Tool, both patient and non-patient authors rated their experience highly. Conclusions Based on a systematic review, we have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications.

Improving the quality of research reporting is crucial for addressing current challenges in palliative care, with academic journals playing a crucial role in promoting clear and comprehensive reporting through structured guidelines. These guidelines, such as Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and evaluation, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Case Reports (CARE) guidelines, transparent reporting of evaluations with nonrandomized designs (TREND), transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD), meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) Checklist, methods of researching end-of-life care Statement, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence 2.0, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials (SPIRIT), template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research and Standards for Qualitative Research, are instrumental in ensuring transparency by furnishing essential details for comprehending, replicating and applying research findings in clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. The Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research (EQUATOR) network champions trustworthy health research literature globally by advocating for transparent and accurate reporting, thereby enhancing the reliability and utility of research outcomes research outcomes., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (© 2024 Published by Scientific Scholar on behalf of Indian Journal of Palliative Care.)

Objectives: To formally evaluate the uptake and reporting of the Grading of Recommendation Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST)., Study Design and Setting: Based on an a priori, written protocol, we developed a dedicated data abstraction form that included the six suggested criteria for using and applying GRADE. By searching the EAST website, we identified all EAST guidelines that referenced the use of GRADE. All steps of the data abstraction process were completed independently and in duplicate by two members of the research team., Results: We identified a total of 48 CPGs that used GRADE. Trauma and violence prevention (n = 11; 23.9%) was the most common topic. The median number of patient/population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions addressed was 3 (interquartile range: 2; 4) with a median of 2.5 (interquartile range: 1; 4) critical outcomes. A conditional/weak recommendation was provided for n = 79 (51.4%) PICOs, whereas a strong recommendation was provided for 33 PICOs (23.9%). For 22 PICOs (15.9%), no recommendation was made. Nearly all guideline documents provided search dates (n = 44; 95.7%) and a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram (n = 44; 95.7%). Most described categories for rating down (n = 35; 76.1%). GRADE decision-making domains related to the ratio of benefits to harms, values and preferences, and resource utilization were referenced by 43.5% (n = 20), 43.5% (n = 20), and 30.4% (n = 14) of CPGs, respectively. For nearly half of PICO questions (n = 59; 44.2%) authors did not provide an evidence profile or summary of findings table. Comparing time periods from 2014-2018 to 2019-2022, the proportion of recommendations with an overall certainty of evidence increased (52.4% vs 83.9%; P < 0.001)., Conclusion: EAST has successfully adopted GRADE to develop many trauma-related guidelines, each addressing a finite number of focused clinical questions based on systematic reviews conducted in-house. Overall reporting improved over time. There is for improvement when it comes to consistent provision of an overall certainty of evidence, the reporting of the evidence to decision-making process, and the justification of strong recommendations based on low/very low certainty evidence., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Philipp Dahm is a member of the US GRADE Network and cofacilitator of its workshop which has provided training to many EAST members. He is also a coauthor of the EAST Handbook on applying GRADE and several individual guideline documents. Brett Norling and William Miller have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Understanding of the value of patient and public involvement in research has grown in recent years, but so too has uncertainty about how best to practice and how best to report such involvement in research outputs. One way proposed to report such involvement is through checklists, such as the GRIPP2, which aims to improve quality, transparency, and consistency in such reporting. We critique the unproblematised use of such a tool because of two main concerns. First, being asked to complete a GRIPP2 for a recent publication felt divisive given that the service user researcher was as much a member of the authorship team as the other researchers (whose involvement did not necessitate a checklist). Second, checklists do not actually address the power imbalances and tokenism that is rife in patient and public involvement in research. Indeed, the false sense of objectivity fostered by meeting the minimum requirements of the checklist means that researchers may not go further to engage in reflexive research practices and reporting. Rather than rote use of such checklists, we recommend mindful reflexive reporting in research outputs of patient and public involvement processes. We also recommend future iterations of the GRIPP consider (a) incorporating criteria about whether the checklist is completed by or with service user researchers or not, (b) addressing criteria that position service user research as needing to be justified, and (c) expanding the "critical perspective" element of the checklist to explicitly consider power differentials. Plain English summary: Checklists (such as the GRIPP2) have been proposed as a way to improve how research papers report patient and public involvement in research projects. We were recently asked to complete a GRIPP2 as part of a peer review process, and it felt divisive. AB—a service user researcher—was just as much a part of the research team as was BS—a critical health psychologist. However, the role of BS in the research did not have to be justified or reported in the same way that was being asked of AB. A further concern about being required to use the checklist was that it did not necessarily lead to better reporting. Rather, it created a false sense of objectivity about patient and public involvement, and this might serve to hide power imbalances and tokenism in the research process. We recommend that instead of relying on such checklists, that researchers, reviewers, editors and readers reflect on patient and public involvement processes and the ways in which these are reported. We also make recommendations to make future iterations of the GRIPP more inclusive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Research reporting guidelines are increasingly commonplace and shown to improve the quality of published health research and health outcomes. Despite severe health inequities among Indigenous Peoples and the potential for research to address the causes, there is an extended legacy of health research exploiting Indigenous Peoples. This paper describes the development of the CONSolIDated critERtia for strengthening the reporting of health research involving Indigenous Peoples (CONSIDER) statement. Methods A collaborative prioritization process was conducted based on national and international statements and guidelines about Indigenous health research from the following nations (Peoples): Australia (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders), Canada (First Nations Peoples, Métis), Hawaii (Native Hawaiian), New Zealand (Māori), Taiwan (Taiwan Indigenous Tribes), United States of America (First Nations Peoples) and Northern Scandinavian countries (Sami). A review of seven research guidelines was completed, and meta-synthesis was used to construct a reporting guideline checklist for transparent and comprehensive reporting of research involving Indigenous Peoples. Results A list of 88 possible checklist items was generated, reconciled, and categorized. Eight research domains and 17 criteria for the reporting of research involving Indigenous Peoples were identified. The research reporting domains were: (i) governance; (ii) relationships; (iii) prioritization; (iv) methodologies; (v) participation; (vi) capacity; (vii) analysis and findings; and (viii) dissemination. Conclusions The CONSIDER statement is a collaborative synthesis and prioritization of national and international research statements and guidelines. The CONSIDER statement provides a checklist for the reporting of health research involving Indigenous peoples to strengthen research praxis and advance Indigenous health outcomes.

Background: Inaccurate, false or incomplete research publications may mislead readers including researchers and decision-makers. It is therefore important that such problems are identified and rectified promptly. This usually involves collaboration between the research institutions and academic journals involved, but these interactions can be problematic. Methods: These recommendations were developed following discussions at World Conferences on Research Integrity in 2013 and 2017, and at a specially convened 3-day workshop in 2016 involving participants from 7 countries with expertise in publication ethics and research integrity. The recommendations aim to address issues surrounding cooperation and liaison between institutions (e.g. universities) and journals about possible and actual problems with the integrity of reported research arising before and after publication. Results: The main recommendations are that research institutions should: develop mechanisms for assessing the integrity of reported research (if concerns are raised) that are distinct from processes to determine whether individual researchers have committed misconduct; release relevant sections of reports of research integrity or misconduct investigations to all journals that have published research that was investigated; take responsibility for research performed under their auspices regardless of whether the researcher still works at that institution or how long ago the work was done; work with funders to ensure essential research data is retained for at least 10 years. Journals should: respond to institutions about research integrity cases in a timely manner; have criteria for determining whether, and what type of, information and evidence relating to the integrity of research reports should be passed on to institutions; pass on research integrity concerns to institutions, regardless of whether they intend to accept the work for publication; retain peer review records for at least 10 years to enable the investigation of peer review manipulation or other inappropriate behaviour by authors or reviewers. Conclusions: Various difficulties can prevent effective cooperation between academic journals and research institutions about research integrity concerns and hinder the correction of the research record if problems are discovered. While the issues and their solutions may vary across different settings, we encourage research institutions, journals and funders to consider how they might improve future collaboration and cooperation on research integrity cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ongoing changes in academic publishing require periodic updates to research reporting standards in outdoor, experiential, environmental, and adventure education and recreation fields, to maintain quality and relevance. Purpose: This essay interprets recent statements by major educational and psychological associations and applies their guidelines for research reporting to the Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership (JOREL), the Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education (JOEE), the Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning (JAEOL), and the Journal of Experiential Education (JEE). Methodology/Approach: This joint statement was written by editors of the JOREL, JOEE, JAEOL, and JEE to produce guidance for research reporting across these journal platforms. Findings/Conclusions: The associations' recommendations for reporting qualitative and quantitative research should be considered as guidance for submitting future empirical manuscripts to the JOREL, JOEE, JAEOL, and JEE. Implications: Authors, reviewers, and readers should consult this essay for guidelines on reporting, reviewing, and reading research in the above journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rigorous simulation-based research is essential to advance the science of nursing education. This article outlines the use of the updated Simulation Research Rubric (SRR) to assess the quality of published simulation research articles. The SRR was used to rate 73 published articles in the Clinical Simulation in Nursing from 2015 to 2017. All articles were reviewed and rated by two reviewers. Of the 73 articles reviewed, 15 (20.5%) received a rating of excellent (76%-100%), 39 (53.4%) were rated as good (51%-75%), and 19 (26%) were rated as fair (26%-50%). Inter-rater reliability was 0.92, with a content validity index of 0.95 for the SRR. The strengths and weaknesses of two years of published simulation-based research reports were identified. Although the SRR was not intended to be used to evaluate research itself, the rubric can be used as a framework to develop a thorough research proposal, for rating grant proposals, and for teaching students how to critique written research reports. • This review extends previous psychometrics of the Simulation Research Rubric. • Review highlights articles strong in their introduction, background, and rationale. • Areas for improvement: theoretical framework, simulation development and debriefing. • Additional work is needed to improve the rigor of published simulation research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To assess the reporting quality of recently published randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in Endodontics, to investigate factors associated with reporting quality, and to evaluate the existence and characteristics of spin, that is using reporting strategies that distort study results and misguide readers. Methodology: The PubMed database was searched to identify abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics published during 2017 to 2018. Two authors assessed the reporting quality of each included abstract using the original 16‐item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist, with the overall quality score (OQS, range: 0–16) being the primary outcome measure. For each individual item, a score of '1' was given if it was described adequately, and '0' if the description was inadequate. Linear regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with reporting quality. For the evaluation of spin, two authors selected parallel‐group RCTs with a nonsignificant primary outcome from the included abstracts and evaluated independently the existence and characteristics of spin amongst these abstracts. Results: A total of 162 abstracts were included for assessment of reporting, for which the mean OQS was 3.97 (SD, 1.30; 95 % CI, 3.77–4.17). According to multivariable analysis, origin from Europe (P = 0.001) and reporting of the exact P value (P = 0.020) were significantly associated with better reporting. Forty abstracts with statistically nonsignificant results for their primary outcome were included for spin evaluation, amongst which 34 (85.0%) had at least one type of spin. Thirty‐two abstracts (94.1%) had spin in their conclusions section, and six abstracts (17.6%) had spin in the results section. Conclusions: The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials abstracts in Endodontics needs to be improved. The occurrence rate of spin in the sample of abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics was high. Relevant stakeholders are recommended to be familiar with the CONSORT for Abstracts guideline and develop active strategies to ensure its implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are increasing calls for patient involvement in sharing health research results, but no evidence-based recommendations to guide such involvement. Our objectives were to: (1) conduct a systematic review of the evidence on patient involvement in results sharing, (2) propose evidence-based recommendations to help maximize benefits and minimize risks of such involvement and (3) conduct this project with patient authors. Methods: To avoid research waste, we verified that no systematic reviews were registered or published on this topic. We co-created, with patients, a PRISMA-P–compliant protocol. We included peer-reviewed publications reporting the effects of patient involvement in preparing peer-reviewed publications or results summaries from health research studies. We searched (9/10/2017) MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and secondary information sources (until 11/06/2018). We assessed the risk of bias in eligible publications and extracted data using standardized processes. To evaluate patient involvement in this project, we co-created a Patient Authorship Experience Tool. Results: All nine eligible publications reported on patient involvement in preparing publications; none on preparing results summaries. Evidence quality was moderate. A qualitative synthesis of evidence indicated the benefits of patient involvement may outweigh the risks. We have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks when involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications. The recommendations focus on practical actions patient and non-patient authors can take before (10 recommendations), during (7 recommendations) and after (4 recommendations) manuscript development. Using the Patient Authorship Experience Tool, both patient and non-patient authors rated their experience highly. Conclusions: Based on a systematic review, we have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In March 2019, SmartTots, a public-private partnership between the US Food and Drug Administration and the International Anesthesia Research Society, hosted a meeting attended by research experts, anaesthesia journal editors, and government agency representatives to discuss the continued need for rigorous preclinical research and the importance of establishing reporting standards for the field of anaesthetic perinatal neurotoxicity. This group affirmed the importance of preclinical research in the field, and welcomed novel and mechanistic approaches to answer some of the field's largest questions. The attendees concluded that summarising the benefits and disadvantages of specific model systems, and providing guidance for reporting results, would be helpful for designing new experiments and interpreting results across laboratories. This expert opinion report is a summary of these discussions, and includes a focused review of current animal models and reporting standards for the field of perinatal anaesthetic neurotoxicity. This will serve as a practical guide and road map for novel and rigorous experimental work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether abstracts of low back pain reviews contained spin, whether these abstracts consistently represented the full text, and whether the spin in these abstracts was associated with the type of conclusion. DESIGN: Overview study. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database on January 10, 2018. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Systematic reviews of physical therapy interventions for low back pain published between 2015 and 2017. DATA SYNTHESIS: Spin was assessed using a 7-item checklist. We evaluated consistency by comparing information in the abstract with that in the full text using the 7-item checklist and kappa coefficient analysis. We used logistic regression analysis to evaluate the association between spin in the abstract and type of conclusion, We evaluated methodological quality using the revised version of the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) tool. RESULTS: We included 66 eligible systematic reviews, subdivided into Cochrane (n = 9) and non- Cochrane (n = 57) reviews, There was some form of spin in 80% of abstracts. Abstracts of non-Cochrane reviews were not consistent with the full text (fair to moderate agreement). Cochrane review abstracts had substantial to almost perfect agreement with the full text. Spin was not associated with type of conclusion in all systematic reviews (P<.05). The methodological quality ranged from "high" to "critically low." CONCLUSION: The abstracts of systematic reviews evaluating physical therapy interventions for low back pain need improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Problem: The trend in current research is to seek a statistically significant finding, one that provides a p value less than a predetermined alpha. Unfortunately, a large number of research studies have been identified as being nonreplicable along with having other shortcomings (low power, improper methodology, poor sample size) that reduce the rigor of a study's research findings. Additional techniques are needed beyond relying solely on a p value. The Solution: This article presents recommendations that Human Resource Development (HRD) scholars and scholar-practitioners can implement to improve the rigor of the discipline's research and practice. This article also provides guidelines (higher power, meta-analyses, low bias in large studies) of how to best avoid producing nonreplicability studies along with recommendations for the larger field, in this instance for scholars and scholar-practitioners in the social sciences. The Stakeholders: Scholars, scholar-practitioners, employees, and researchers who are impacted by changes in their environment due to less-than rigorous evidence-based research findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Universities closely watch international league tables because these tables influence governments, donors and students. Achieving a high ranking in a table, or an annual rise in ranking, allows universities to promote their achievements using an externally validated measure. However, league tables predominantly reward measures of research output, such as publications and citations, and may therefore be promoting poor research practices by encouraging the “publish or perish” mentality. Methods: We examined whether a league table could be created based on good research practice. We rewarded researchers who cited a reporting guideline, which help researchers report their research completely, accurately and transparently, and were created to reduce the waste of poorly described research. We used the EQUATOR guidelines, which means our tables are mostly relevant to health and medical research. We used Scopus to identify the citations. Results: Our cross-sectional tables for the years 2016 and 2017 included 14,408 papers with 47,876 author affiliations. We ranked universities and included a bootstrap measure of uncertainty. We clustered universities in five similar groups in an effort to avoid over-interpreting small differences in ranks. Conclusions: We believe there is merit in considering more socially responsible criteria for ranking universities, and this could encourage better research practice internationally if such tables become as valued as the current quantity-focused tables.

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

Background: Universities closely watch international league tables because these tables influence governments, donors and students. Achieving a high ranking in a table, or an annual rise in ranking, allows universities to promote their achievements using an externally validated measure. However, league tables predominantly reward measures of research output, such as publications and citations, and may therefore be promoting poor research practices by encouraging the “publish or perish” mentality. Methods: We examined whether a league table could be created based on good research practice. We rewarded researchers who cited a reporting guideline, which help researchers report their research completely, accurately and transparently, and were created to reduce the waste of poorly described research. We used the EQUATOR guidelines, which means our tables are mostly relevant to health and medical research. Results: Our cross-sectional tables for the years 2016 and 2017 included 14,408 papers with 47,876 author affiliations. We ranked universities and included a bootstrap measure of uncertainty. We clustered universities in five similar groups in an effort to avoid over-interpreting small differences in ranks. Conclusions: We believe there is merit in considering more socially responsible criteria for ranking universities, and this could encourage better research practice internationally if such tables become as valued as the current quantity-focused tables.

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

Recommendations by the German Council of Science and Humanities regarding the specification and introduction of a German “Research Core Dataset” have initiated a process of research information standardization in the German science system. The article provides an introduction to the Research Core Dataset, its development process, structure and contents, with a focus on the area of publications and its requirements for data collection. It further addresses the current implementation process of the standard and describes the tasks and support structures of its helpdesk. It concludes with a discussion on the role of libraries’ expertise in implementation and future development of the standard in the context of recent developments in the German research information landscape.

In diesem Artikel wird die Frage aufgegriffen, welche Auswirkungen der Kerndatensatz Forschung (KDSF) auf die aktuelle bibliothekarische Praxis haben kann. Dabei wird eine Bestandsaufnahme der (möglichen) Betätigungsfelder von Bibliotheken rund um den KDSF und die Einführung von Forschungsinformationssystemen (FIS) gezogen. Es sollen die Herausforderungen und das Potenzial des KDSF für die tägliche bibliothekarische Praxis im Rahmen einer modernen und integrierten Forschungsberichterstattung beleuchtet und Impulse für in der Zukunft erforderliche Anpassungsprozesse gegeben werden. Der Artikel stellt Aufbau und Konzept des KDSF vor. Der Fokus liegt dabei auf dem Kerndatensatz-Bereich „Publikationen". Bisherige Erfahrungen und Rückmeldungen an den „Helpdesk für die Einführung des Kerndatensatz Forschung" werden aus bibliothekarischer Sicht erörtert. Ein weiterer Teil zeigt beispielhafte Aktivitäten und Herangehensweisen, die sich für Bibliotheken im Umfeld der Einführung von FIS ergeben. This article discusses possible effects of the "Research Core Dataset" (RCD) on current library practices in Germany. It examines (possible) fields of activity for libraries with regard to the implementation of the RCD standard and the introduction of current research information systems (CRIS). The article highlights the challenges and the potential of the RCD for the daily practice of library work within the framework of modern and integrated research reporting. It also makes suggestions for future adaptation processes in scientific libraries. The article presents the structure and concept of the RCD with a focus on its provisions for the management of publication data. In addition, it presents insights from the Helpdesk – a support structure to facilitate the institutional implementation of the RCD standard. The article concludes by discussing exemplary activities and approaches for libraries in the context of the introduction of institutional CRIS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Observational studies are ambiguous, difficult, and necessary for epidemiology. Presently, there are concerns that the evidence produced by most observational studies in epidemiology is not credible and contributes to research waste. I argue that observational epidemiology could be improved by focusing greater attention on 1) defining questions that make clear whether the inferential goal is descriptive or causal; 2) greater utilization of quantitative bias analysis and alternative research designs that aim to decrease the strength of assumptions needed to estimate causal effects; and 3) promoting, experimenting with, and perhaps institutionalizing both reproducible research standards and replication studies to evaluate the fragility of study findings in epidemiology. Greater clarity, credibility, and transparency in observational epidemiology will help to provide reliable evidence that can serve as a basis for making decisions about clinical or population-health interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This piece summarises some of the most recent advances in the area of research information management and Current Research Information Systems (CRIS). With a focus on the increasing level of system interoperability that the implementation of the CERIF-XML Guidelines for CRIS Managers jointly issued by OpenAIRE and euroCRIS is making possible, the update lists a number of improvements that adding CRIS systems to the list of OpenAIRE data providers may deliver to the attempt to capture a more comprehensive snapshot of the research being conducted in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]