3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Reporting quality of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Africa: A systematic analysis

      research-article
      1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , *
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic analysis of the reporting quality of the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa from 2014–2018 using the Modified STROBE statement. We included studies on the 2014 EVD outbreak alone, limited to those on human patients in Africa. We searched the following databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for outbreak reports published between 2014–2018. We assessed factors potentially associated with the quality of reporting. A total of 69 of 131 (53%) articles within the full-text review fulfilled our eligibility criteria and underwent the Modified STROBE assessment for analyzing the quality of reporting. The Modified STROBE scores of the included studies ranged from 11–26 points and the mean was found to be 19.54 out of 30 with a standard deviation (SD) of ± 4.30. The top three reported Modified STROBE components were descriptive characteristics of study participants, scientific background and evidence rational, and clinical significance of observations. More than 75% of the studies met a majority of the criteria in the Modified STROBE assessment tool. Information that was commonly missing included addressing potential source of bias, sensitivity analysis, further results/analysis such as risk estimates and odds ratios, presence of a flowchart, and addressing missing data. In multivariable analysis, peer-reviewed publication was the only predictor that remained significantly associated with a higher Modified STROBE score. In conclusion, the large range of Modified STROBE scores observed indicates variability in the quality of outbreak reports for EVD. The review identified strong reporting in some areas, whereas other areas are in need of improvement, in particular providing an important description of the outbreak setting and identifying any external elements (potential biases and confounding factors) that could hinder the credibility of the findings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references84

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)

          Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumour markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodological problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumour marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalisability of the study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumour marker studies was a major recommendation of the US National Cancer Institute and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. Similar to the successful CONSORT initiative for randomised trials and the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

            The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with "trial flow", study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Null Hypothesis Testing: Problems, Prevalence, and an Alternative

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                25 June 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 6
                : e0218170
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Global Health Office, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [2 ] Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [3 ] Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                [4 ] Michael G DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
                Tulane University, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2315-5390
                Article
                PONE-D-18-30342
                10.1371/journal.pone.0218170
                6592536
                31237909
                61009e25-ba2c-40d0-9563-f786e5e945e4
                © 2019 Huynh et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 23 October 2018
                : 28 May 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 3, Pages: 17
                Funding
                Dr. Loeb is supported by a CIHR Foundation Grant.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Peer Review
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Africa
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Infectious Disease Epidemiology
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Infectious Diseases
                Infectious Disease Epidemiology
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Infectious Diseases
                Nosocomial Infections
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Research Reporting Guidelines
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article