27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research

      research-article

      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

          Objectives

          The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far.

          Design

          Scoping review.

          Search strategy

          We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

          Results

          109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript.

          Conclusions

          This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references129

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

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

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

            The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

            The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

              The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2019
                9 May 2019
                : 9
                : 5
                : e026589
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentStatistics and Operations Research , Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya , Barcelona, Spain
                [2 ] departmentNuffield Department ofOrthopaedics, Rheumatologyand Musculoskeletal Sciences, Centre for Statistics in Medicine , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [3 ] departmentCentre for Journalology , Ottawa Hospital Research Institute , Ottawa, Canada
                [4 ] departmentCentre d\'épidémiologie Clinique , Université Paris Descartes , Paris, France
                [5 ] departmentBiostatistics , University of Liverpool , Liverpool, Merseyside, UK
                Author notes
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-4206
                Article
                bmjopen-2018-026589
                10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026589
                6527996
                31076472
                a60be293-3194-440d-acb2-843141559860
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 12 September 2018
                : 17 January 2019
                : 03 April 2019
                Categories
                Medical Publishing and Peer Review
                Research
                1506
                1711
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                scoping review,quality of reporting,completeness of reporting,reporting guidelines,knowledge synthesis,adherence

                Comments

                Comment on this article