Reporting Guidelines

2022 ◽  
pp. 83-100
Author(s):  
Anthony R. Artino ◽  
Anna T. Cianciolo ◽  
Erik W. Driessen ◽  
David P. Sklar ◽  
Steven J. Durning
Keyword(s):  
Reporting Guidelines

PRISMA 2020 statement: What's new and the importance of reporting guidelines

2021 ◽  
pp. 105918
Author(s):  
Catrin Sohrabi ◽  
Thomas Franchi ◽  
Ginimol Mathew ◽  
Ahmed Kerwan ◽  
Maria Nicola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reporting Guidelines

scholarly journals Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID): an expert consensus-based statement

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayakumar Jayaraman ◽  
Vineet Dhar ◽  
Kevin J. Donly ◽  
Ekta Priya ◽  
Daniela P. Raggio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Pediatric Dentistry ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Expert Consensus ◽  
Reporting Standards ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Executive Group

Abstract Background Reporting guidelines for different study designs are currently available to report studies with accuracy and transparency. There is a need to develop supplementary guideline items that are specific to areas within Pediatric Dentistry. This study aims to develop Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID) guidelines using a pre-defined expert consensus-based Delphi process. Methods The development of the RAPID guidelines was based on the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. Following a comprehensive search of the literature, the Executive Group identified ten themes in Pediatric Dentistry and compiled a draft checklist of items under each theme. The themes were categorized as: General, Oral Medicine, Pathology and Radiology, Children with Special Health Care Needs, Sedation and Hospital Dentistry, Behavior Guidance, Dental Caries, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Pulp Therapy, Traumatology, and Interceptive Orthodontics. A RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) was formed comprising of 69 members from 15 countries across six continents. Items were scored using a 9-point rating Likert scale. Items achieving a score of seven and above, marked by at least 70% of RDG members were accepted into the RAPID checklist items. Weighted mean scores were calculated for each item. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and one-way ANOVA was used to calculate the difference in the weighted mean scores between the themes. Results The final RAPID checklist comprised of 128 items that were finalized and approved by the RDG members in the online consensus meeting. The percentage for high scores (scores 7 to 9) ranged from 69.57 to 100% for individual items. The overall weighted mean score of the final items ranged from 7.51 to 8.28 (out of 9) and the difference was statistically significant between the themes (p < 0.05). Conclusions The RAPID statement provides guidance to researchers, authors, reviewers and editors, to ensure that all elements relevant to particular studies are adequately reported.

Artificial intelligence reporting guidelines: what the pediatric radiologist needs to know

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riwa Meshaka ◽  
Daniel Pinto Dos Santos ◽  
Owen J. Arthurs ◽  
Neil J. Sebire ◽  
Susan C. Shelmerdine
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Pediatric Radiologist

scholarly journals The REFLECT Statement: Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety: Explanation and Elaboration

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 105-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. M. Sargeant ◽  
A. M. O’Connor ◽  
I. A. Gardner ◽  
J. S. Dickson ◽  
M. E. Torrence ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Food Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals The RECORD reporting guidelines: meeting the methodological and ethical demands of transparency in research using routinely-collected health data

2016 ◽  
Vol Volume 8 ◽  
pp. 389-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Nicholls ◽  
Sinead Langan ◽  
Henrik Toft Sørensen ◽  
Irene Petersen ◽  
Eric Benchimol
Keyword(s):  
Health Data ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Routinely Collected Health Data

scholarly journals Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e016948 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Brett ◽  
Sophie Staniszewska ◽  
Iveta Simera ◽  
Kate Seers ◽  
Carole Mockford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Involvement ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient And Public Involvement ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Consensus Development ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Three Phase ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionPatient and public involvement (PPI) is inconsistently reported in health and social care research. Improving the quality of how PPI is reported is critical in developing a higher quality evidence base to gain a better insight into the methods and impact of PPI. This paper describes the methods used to develop and gain consensus on guidelines for reporting PPI in research studies (updated version of the Guidance for Reporting Patient and Public Involvement (GRIPP2)).MethodsThere were three key stages in the development of GRIPP2: identification of key items for the guideline from systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI on health research and health services, a three-phase online Delphi survey with a diverse sample of experts in PPI to gain consensus on included items and a face-to-face consensus meeting to finalise and reach definitive agreement on GRIPP2. Challenges and lessons learnt during the development of the reporting guidelines are reported.DiscussionThe process of reaching consensus is vital within the development of guidelines and policy directions, although debate around how best to reach consensus is still needed. This paper discusses the critical stages of consensus development as applied to the development of consensus for GRIPP2 and discusses the benefits and challenges of consensus development.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document