Search

Objective Methods Results Significance Numerous studies have examined epilepsy surgery outcomes, yet the variability in the level of detail reported hampers our ability to apply these findings broadly across patient groups. Established reporting standards in other clinical research fields enhance the quality and generalizability of results, ensuring that the insights gained from studying these surgeries can benefit future patients effectively. This study aims to assess current reporting standards for epilepsy surgery research and identify potential gaps and areas for enhancement.The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) repository was accessed from inception to April 27, 2023, yielding 561 available reporting standards. Reporting standards were manually reviewed in duplicate independently for applicability to epilepsy and/or neurosurgery research. The reporting standards had to cover the following aspects in human studies: (1) reporting standards for epilepsy/epilepsy surgery and (2) reporting standards for neurosurgery. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. The top five neurosurgery, neurology, and medicine journals were also identified through Google Scholar's citation index and examined to determine the relevant reporting standards they recommended and whether those were registered with EQUATOR.Of the 561 EQUATOR reporting standards, 181 were pertinent to epilepsy surgery. One was related to epilepsy, six were specific to surgical research, and nine were related to neurological/neurosurgical research. The remaining 165 reporting standards were applicable to research across various disciplines and included but were not limited to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trails), STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses). None of these required reporting factors associated with epilepsy surgery outcomes, such as duration of epilepsy or magnetic resonance imaging findings.Reporting standards specific to epilepsy surgery are lacking, reflecting a gap in standards that may affect the quality of publications. Improving this gap with a set of specific reporting standards would ensure that epilepsy surgery studies are more transparent and rigorous in their design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Reporting research is as important a part of a study as its design or analysis. Reporting guidelines (RGs) provide structured advice on how to report research studies clearly and adequately. This study aimed to review the development of RGs of Chinese medicine (CM) and to provide recommendations for improvement. Methods: Through a systematic search of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and electronic databases up to January 1, 2022, we identified a total of 15 RGs of CM, and further summarized their characteristics and applications. In addition, we reviewed the development of international RGs and analyzed its impact for CM. Results: Compared with the generic RGs, the reporting standards of CM have been rapidly developed over the last 10 years, of which 57% were issued in recent 3 years (2019–2021). Currently, the system of RGs of CM has been established, especially for clinical trials, including various CM interventions and covering the guidelines from trial registration, protocol, results publication to the evidence synthesis and clinical practice guideline. However, the application of RGs of CM is suboptimal. Conclusion: It is necessary to take further measures to promote practical application, improve journals’ endorsement, and establish quality monitoring procedures for RGs of CM in the future.

Objectives: Massage is a common therapy of nonpharmacological treatments, particularly in Tuina (Chinese massage) as its most common style, detailed guidance in reporting the intervention is warranted for its evaluation and replication. Based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials), we aimed to develop an Extension for Tuina/Massage, namely "The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials Of Tuina/Massage (STRICTOTM)." Methods: A group of professional clinicians, trialists, methodologists, developers of reporting guidelines, epidemiologists, statisticians, and editors has developed this STRICTOTM checklist through a standard methodology process recommended by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of Health Research) Network, including prospective registration, literature review, draft of the initial items, three rounds of the Delphi survey, consensus meeting, pilot test, and finalization of the guideline. Results: A checklist of seven items (namely Tuina/Massage rationale, details of Tuina/Massage, intervention regimen, other components of the intervention, Tuina/Massage provider background, control or comparator interventions, and precaution measures), and 16 subitems were developed. Explanations and examples (E&E) for each item are also provided. Conclusions: The working group hopes that the STRICTOTM, in conjunction with both the CONSORT statement and extension for nonpharmacologic treatment, can improve the reporting quality and transparency of Tuina/Massage clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Well-written and transparent case reports (1) reveal early signals of potential benefits, harms, and information on the use of resources; (2) provide information for clinical research and clinical practice guidelines, and (3) inform medical education. High-quality case reports are more likely when authors follow reporting guidelines. During 20112012, a group of clinicians, researchers, and journal editors developed recommendations for the accurate reporting of information in case reports that resulted in the CARE (CAse REport) Statement and Checklist. They were presented at the 2013 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, have been endorsed by multiple medical journals, and translated into nine languages. OBJECTIVES: This explanation and elaboration document has the objective to increase the use and dissemination of the CARE Checklist in writing and publishing case reports. ARTICLE DESIGN AND SETTING: Each item from the CARE Checklist is explained and accompanied by published examples. The explanations and examples in this document are designed to support the writing of high-quality case reports by authors and their critical appraisal by editors, peer reviewers, and readers. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: This article and the 2013 CARE Statement and Checklist, available from the CARE website [www.care-statement.org] and the EQUATOR Network [www.equator-network.org], are resources for improving the completeness and transparency of case reports. SOURCE: This article is a translation of the original paper CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.026), prepared under the permission of the copyright holder (Elsevier Inc.), with supervision from the Scientific Editor by Professor E.G. Starostina, MD, PhD (translator) (Moscow, Russia).

Various guidelines for authors of research papers and the checklists that often accompany these statements play an important role in the creation of carefully written scientific papers - for authors, they serve as tools to ensure the correct structure and content of the manuscript, increasing the chances that a paper will be published in a journal with a high rejection rate. The aim of this editorial is to provide a concise outline of the checklists most frequently used to guide the structuring of papers published in Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine, and to support current and prospective authors of this journal in choosing a checklist for their manuscript. The EQUATOR website is presented as a useful tool in choosing a checklist: https://www.equator-network.org/. Then, 8 checklists that are most popular among authors who publish their work in Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine are outlined: STROBE - for observational studies; ARRIVE - for any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals; CASP - for qualitative studies; CONSORT - for parallel group randomized trials; PRISMA - for all reviews and meta-analyses; SQUIRE - for studies on quality improvement in healthcare; STARD - for diagnostic accuracy studies; REMARK - for tumor marker prognostic studies. Each of the 8 presented checklists is discussed in a following order: 1) the name of the checklist is explained; 2) the type of articles to which it is intended is pointed out; 3) the structure of the checklist is explained; 4) if there are any extensions of the presented checklist for specific subtypes of papers, they are listed; 5) the most important literature on the presented checklist is provided. As a take-home message, basic tips for choosing a checklist are formulated. Finally, examples of papers adhering to each discussed checklist are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study is to identify available reporting guidelines for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), delineate their fundamental characteristics, assess the scientific rigor of their development process, and evaluate their dissemination., Study Design and Setting: A search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, WANFANG DATA, and the EQUATOR Network to identify TCM reporting guidelines. A preprepared Excel database was used to extract information on the basic characteristics, development process, and dissemination information. The development process quality of TCM reporting guidelines was assessed by evaluating their compliance with the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (GDHRRG). The extent of dissemination of these guidelines was analyzed by examining the number of citations received., Results: A total of 26 reporting guidelines for TCM were obtained from 20 academic journals, with 61.5% of them published in English journals. Among the guidelines, 14 (53.8%) were registered in the EQUATOR Network. On average, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines was reported to be 63.3% ranging from 22.2% to 94.4%. Three steps showed poor compliance, namely guideline endorsement (23.1%), translated guidelines (19.2%), and developing a publication strategy (19.2%). Furthermore, the compliance rate of GDHRRG guidelines published in English journals was higher than that in Chinese journals. In terms of the dissemination, 15.4% of the guidelines had been cited over 100 times, while 73.1% had been cited less than 50 times., Conclusion: The development of TCM reporting guidelines still has limitations in terms of regarding scientific rigor and follow-up dissemination. Therefore, it is important to ensure adherence to the scientific process in the development of TCM reporting guidelines and to strengthen their promotion, dissemination, and implementation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A clinical practice guideline (CPG) reporting checklist is used to assist CPG developers in recording what content should be provided in a CPG report. Recently, two checklists have become available on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network website: AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation) published in 2016 and RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) published in 2017. The objective of this study was to describe the advantages and disadvantages of these two CPG reporting checklists.Methods: Two epidemiologists who lacked experience using both AGREE and RIGHT but were familiar with evidence-based medicine methodology independently compared AGREE with RIGHT on an item-by-item basis. Their assessments were compiled on a pre-designed data form and any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Three other co-authors independently compared AGREE with RIGHT and decided if they agreed with the results of comparison of the two CPG reporting checklists from the first two co-authors. Finally, another co-author reviewed the comparison results to ensure that the description was clear and understandable.Results: The following six relationships between the two checklists were observed: (1) 11 items from AGREE completely matched with 12 items from RIGHT; (2) four items were listed in AGREE only; (3) 12 items were listed in RIGHT only; (4) three items in AGREE were partially covered by three items in RIGHT; (5) six items in RIGHT were partially covered by three items in AGREE; and (6) two items intersected across AGREE and RIGHT. Based on the comparison results, the potential impact analysis of selecting either checklist is described.Discussion: We recommend that CPG developers use either AGREE plus items unique to RIGHT or RIGHT plus items unique to AGREE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to investigate knowledge and awareness of a sample of young researcher physicians about reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR network. Materials and Methods: One hundred young researcher physicians were enrolled for the study and evaluated using a questionnaire which assessed the level of usage and knowledge of reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR network. Results: Thirty-eight percent of the participants were aware of the EQUATOR network. The most recognized reporting guidelines were CONSORT (32%), PRISMA (35%), and the least recognized ones were ARRIVE (12%) GRRAS (12%). The percentage of participants who were aware of the EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines were deficient. Seventy-three percent of the participants declared that they requested more information about reporting guidelines when they were asked whether they wished to be informed about reporting guidelines. There were statistically significant differences between specialists and residents regarding the level of knowledge on reporting guidelines and reporting guideline use except for PRISMA and SAMPL guidelines and their level of the desire to be informed about guidelines were similar. When participants whose publication number was above and below the mean of publications of all participants were compared, the level of reporting guidelines usage and knowledge of PRISMA, GRRAS were similar and both groups showed equal levels of desire to be informed about guidelines. Conclusion: The use and awareness of the EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines are low among young researcher physicians. To improve the quality of manuscript writing and the acceptance rates, knowledge and awareness of the EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines should be increased among young physicians doing research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To investigate scientific collaboration and citation metrics of reporting guidelines for health research., Study Design and Setting: A cross-sectional analysis of published articles of reporting guidelines for health research. A search of the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network Library (from inception to January 21, 2021) was supplemented by searching websites of guideline developers. For each article, metadata (e.g., authors, institutions, countries, citations) were extracted from the Web of Science and Scopus (up to October 25, 2021). Descriptive analyses were conducted. Network analyses of collaborations were presented., Results: We included 662 articles published in 332 journals. The BMJ (n = 50 articles; 8%), Annals of Internal Medicine (n = 29; 4%), and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (n = 24; 4%) published the largest number of articles. Four thousand seven hundred twenty two authors, 1,647 institutions, and 83 countries were involved. The global productivity was led by the United States (n = 456 articles), the United Kingdom (n = 414), and Canada (n = 306). We found eight clusters of authors (e.g., one major group with 337 members) and three clusters of institutions (e.g., one major group with 256 members). The most prolific authors were affiliated with the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (Canada), the University of Ottawa (Canada), the University of Oxford (the United Kingdom), and Stanford University (the United States)., Conclusion: Our analysis identified key actors producing reporting guidelines, most intense collaborations, and 'citation classics' in the field. These results could potentially be used to strengthen collaborations for developing and disseminating reporting guidelines for health research., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the "Instructions for Authors" of emergency medicine journals. Methods: We performed a web-based data abstraction from the "Instructions for Authors" of the 27 Emergency Medicine journals catalogued in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index to identify whether each journal required, recommended, or made no mention of the following reporting guidelines: EQUATOR Network, ICMJE, ARRIVE, CARE, CONSORT, STARD, TRIPOD, CHEERS, MOOSE, STROBE, COREQ, SRQR, SQUIRE, PRISMA-P, SPIRIT, PRISMA, and QUOROM. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another's ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross-tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS 22. Results: Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 11 (11/27, 40.7%) did not mention a single guideline within their "Instructions for Authors," while the remaining 16 (16/27, 59.3%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The QUOROM statement and SRQR were not mentioned by any journals whereas the ICMJE guidelines (18/27, 66.7%) and CONSORT statement (15/27, 55.6%) were mentioned most often. Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 15 (15/27, 55.6%) did not mention trial or review registration, while the remaining 12 (12/27, 44.4%) at least mentioned one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by seven (7/27, 25.9%) journals while the WHO registry was mentioned by four (4/27, 14.8%). Twelve (12/27, 44.4%) journals mentioned trial registration through any registry platform. Discussion: The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the "Instructions for Authors" of emergency medicine journals. In this study, there was not a single reporting guideline mentioned in more than half of the journals. This undermines efforts of other journals to improve the completeness and transparency of research reporting. Conclusions: Reporting guidelines are infrequently required or recommended by emergency medicine journals. Furthermore, few require clinical trial registration. These two mechanisms may limit bias and should be considered for adoption by journal editors in emergency medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Informative journal abstracts are crucial for the identification and initial appraisal of studies. We aimed to evaluate the informativeness of abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies. Study Design and Setting: PubMed was searched for reports of studies that had evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a test against a clinical reference standard, published in 12 high-impact journals in 2012. Two reviewers independently evaluated the information contained in included abstracts using 21 items deemed important based on published guidance for adequate reporting and study quality assessment. Results: We included 103 abstracts. Crucial information on study population, setting, patient sampling, and blinding as well as confidence intervals around accuracy estimates were reported in <50% of the abstracts. The mean number of reported items per abstract was 10.1 of 21 (standard deviation 2.2). The mean number of reported items was significantly lower for multiple-gate (case-control type) studies, in reports in specialty journals, and for studies with smaller sample sizes and lower abstract word counts. No significant differences were found between studies evaluating different types of tests. Conclusion: Many abstracts of diagnostic accuracy study reports in high-impact journals are insufficiently informative. Developing guidelines for such abstracts could help the transparency and completeness of reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. Primary Objective: Develop, disseminate, and implement systematic reporting guidelines for case reports. Methods: We used a three-phase consensus process consisting of (1) pre-meeting literature review and interviews to generate items for the reporting guidelines, (2) a face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the reporting guidelines, and (3) post-meeting feedback, review, and pilot testing, followed by finalization of the case report guidelines. Results: This consensus process involved 27 participants and resulted in a 13-item checklistda reporting guideline for case reports. The primary items of the checklist are title, key words, abstract, introduction, patient information, clinical findings, timeline, diagnostic assessment, therapeutic interventions, follow-up and outcomes, discussion, patient perspective, and informed consent. Conclusions: We believe the implementation of the CARE (CAse REport) guidelines by medical journals will improve the completeness and transparency of published case reports and that the systematic aggregation of information from case reports will inform clinical study design, provide early signals of effectiveness and harms, and improve healthcare delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. Primary Objective: Develop, disseminate, and implement systematic reporting guidelines for case reports. Methods: We used a three-phase consensus process consisting of (a) pre-meeting literature review and interviews to generate items for the reporting guidelines; (b) a face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the reporting guidelines; and (c) post-meeting feedback, review, and pilot testing, followed by finalization of the case report guidelines. Results: This consensus process involved 27 participants and resulted in a 13-item checklist-a reporting guideline for case reports. The primary items of the checklist are title, key words, abstract, introduction, patient information, clinical findings, timeline, diagnostic assessment, therapeutic interventions, follow-up and outcomes, discussion, patient perspective, and informed consent. Conclusions: We believe the implementation of the CARE (se port) guidelines by medical journals will improve the completeness and transparency of published case reports and that the systematic aggregation of information from case reports will inform clinical study design, provide early signals of effectiveness and harms, and improve healthcare delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eur J Clin Invest 2010; 40 (1): 35–53 Growing evidence demonstrates widespread deficiencies in the reporting of health research studies. The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that aims to enhance the reliability and value of the published health research literature. EQUATOR provides resources, education and training to facilitate good research reporting and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of robust reporting guidelines. This paper presents a collection of tools and guidelines available on the EQUATOR website ( ) that have been developed to increase the accuracy and transparency of health research reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies of the medical literature have revealed numerous and serious problems. Errors in the design, methods and interpretation of studies can frequently be identified. A huge hidden problem is publication bias, the tendency for positive articles to be published, while negative articles are either not written or submitted. This can systematically lead to an overestimation of the value of treatments, of diagnostic or prognostic studies. Even more worrisome is selective reporting: only a subset of a wide array of tested hypotheses are presented (the ones that turned out to be positive with significance testing). This is particularly true for secondary endpoints and subgroup findings, but even the primary endpoints of trials have been modified when publications are compared to protocols. The peer-review process is fallible. Even if it were strengthened, reviewers cannot examine what is not reported. Hence many problems can only be mitigated with better reporting. Numerous initiatives have proposed guidelines to promote transparent reporting, but progress is slow., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Complete, accurate and transparent reporting is an integral part of responsible research conduct. However, many studies have shown that health research publications frequently lack crucial information. Reporting guidelines like the CONSORT Statement help to improve the quality of research reports. Unfortunately, their uptake by journals and authors is still limited and does not maximize their potential. The EQUATOR Network, a new international initiative, leads the effort to promote transparent reporting of research and the use of reporting guidelines. It provides online resources and training relating to the reporting of health research, and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of reporting guidelines (www.equator-network.org). Poor reporting practices can be decreased only through close collaboration of all parties involved in research and its publication; EQUATOR can facilitate the process. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: Poorly reported research seriously undermines the usability of reported findings and misleads clinicians, researchers, policy makers and, ultimately, patients. Guidelines for reporting health research are available but they are not widely used. The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that aims to systematically tackle the problems of poor reporting. The main goals of the EQUATOR Network are to improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of scientific publications by providing resources and education relating to the reporting of health research and assisting in the development, dissemination and implementation of robust reporting guidelines. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Well-written and transparent case reports (1) reveal early signals of potential benefits, harms, and information on the use of resources; (2) provide information for clinical research and clinical practice guidelines, and (3) inform medical education. High-quality case reports are more likely when authors follow reporting guidelines. During 2011-2012, a group of clinicians, researchers, and journal editors developed recommendations for the accurate reporting of information in case reports that resulted in the CARE (CAse REport) Statement and Checklist. They were presented at the 2013 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, have been endorsed by multiple medical journals, and translated into nine languages., Objectives: This explanation and elaboration document has the objective to increase the use and dissemination of the CARE Checklist in writing and publishing case reports., Article Design and Setting: Each item from the CARE Checklist is explained and accompanied by published examples. The explanations and examples in this document are designed to support the writing of high-quality case reports by authors and their critical appraisal by editors, peer reviewers, and readers., Results and Conclusion: This article and the 2013 CARE Statement and Checklist, available from the CARE website [www.care-statement.org] and the EQUATOR Network [www.equator-network.org], are resources for improving the completeness and transparency of case reports., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Implementation studies are often poorly reported and indexed, reducing their potential to inform the provision of healthcare services. The Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) initiative aims to develop guidelines for transparent and accurate reporting of implementation studies., Methods: An international working group developed the StaRI guideline informed by a systematic literature review and e-Delphi prioritisation exercise. Following a face-to-face meeting, the checklist was developed iteratively by email discussion and critical review by international experts., Results: The 27 items of the checklist are applicable to the broad range of study designs employed in implementation science. A key concept is the dual strands, represented as 2 columns in the checklist, describing, on the one hand, the implementation strategy and, on the other, the clinical, healthcare or public health intervention being implemented. This explanation and elaboration document details each of the items, explains the rationale and provides examples of good reporting practice., Conclusions: Previously published reporting statements have been instrumental in improving reporting standards; adoption by journals and authors may achieve a similar improvement in the reporting of implementation strategies that will facilitate translation of effective interventions into routine practice., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)