scholarly journals Investigating the transparency of reporting in two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization studies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Woolf ◽  
Nina Di Cara ◽  
Chris Moreno Stokoe ◽  
Veronika Skrivankova ◽  
Katie Drax ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Causal Inferences ◽  
Independence Assumption ◽  
Summary Data ◽  
Base Platform ◽  
Made In

Background: Two-sample Mendelian randomization (2SMR) is an increasingly popular epidemiological method that uses genetic variants as instruments for making causal inferences. Clear reporting of methods employed in such studies is important for evaluating their underlying quality. However, the quality of methodological reporting of 2SMR studies is currently unclear. Objectives: We aimed to assess the reporting quality of studies that used MR-Base, one of the most popular platforms for implementing 2SMR analysis. Methods: We searched Web of Science Core Collection, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE and citations listed in Google Scholar of the MR-Base descriptor paper for any published MR study that used MR-Base during any component of the MR analysis. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers. We created a bespoke reporting checklist to evaluate reporting quality of 2SMR studies. Information was extracted by at least two independent reviewers. Results: 87 studies were included in the primary analysis, of which 14 had at least 10 phenotypes. Reporting quality was generally poor with a mean of 53% (SD = 14%) of items reported in each study. Many items required for evaluating the validity of key assumptions made in MR were poorly reported: only 44% of studies provided sufficient details for assessing if the variant associates with the exposure ('relevance' assumption), 31% for the assessing if there are any variant-outcome confounders ('independence' assumption), 89% for the assessing if the variant causes the outcome independently of the exposure ('exclusion restriction' assumption), and 32% for assumptions of falsification tests. We found no evidence of a change in reporting over time and findings were similar in a random sample of MR studies that did not use the MR-Base platform. Discussion: The quality of reporting of two-sample Mendelian randomization studies in our sample was generally poor. Journals and researchers should implement the STROBE-MR guidelines to improve reporting quality. Other: Funding: ESRC, Regression: This study pre-registered on the OSF, and the protocol can be found at DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/NFM27

The Impact of STRICTA and CONSORT on Reporting of Randomised Control Trials of Acupuncture: A Systematic Methodological Evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 349-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simen Svenkerud ◽  
Hugh MacPherson
Keyword(s):  
Positive Impact ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Background Clear and unambiguous reporting is essential for researchers and clinicians to be able to assess the quality of research. To enhance the quality of reporting, consensus-based reporting guidelines are commonly used. Objectives To update and extend previous research by evaluating the more recent impact of STRICTA (STandards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture) and CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) guidelines on the quality of reporting of acupuncture trials. Methods By random sampling, approximately 45 trials from each of five 2-year time periods between 1994 and 2015 were included in the study. Using scoring sheets based on the STRICTA and CONSORT checklist items (range 0 to 7 and 0 to 5, respectively), the distribution of items reported over time was investigated, with changes shown using scatterplots. The primary analysis used a before-and-after t-test to compare time periods. A meta-analysis investigated whether or not trials published in journals that endorsed STRICTA were associated with better reporting. Results The study included 207 trials. Improved reporting of items over time was observed, as represented by changes in the scatterplot slope and intercept. The mean STRICTA score increased from 4.27 in the 1994–1995 period to 5.53 in 2014–2015, an 18% improvement. The mean CONSORT score rose from 1.01 in the 1994–1995 period to 3.32 in 2014–2015, an increment of 46%. There was proportionately lower reporting for items related to practitioner background (STRICTA) and for randomisation implementation and allocation concealment (CONSORT). Trials published in journals that endorsed STRICTA had statistically significantly superior reporting of both STRICTA and CONSORT items overall. Conclusion This study has provided evidence of an improvement in reporting of STRICTA and CONSORT items over the time period from 1994 to 2015. Journals that endorse STRICTA have a better record in terms of reporting quality. Some evidence suggests that the publication of STRICTA has had a positive impact on reporting quality.

Reporting Quality in Math Meta-Analyses for Students with or at Risk of Disabilities

2021 ◽  
pp. 001440292110508
Author(s):  
Gena Nelson ◽  
Soyoung Park ◽  
Tasia Brafford ◽  
Nicole A. Heller ◽  
Angela R. Crawford ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Mathematics Interventions ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Mathematics Intervention ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Abstract Screening

Researchers and practitioners alike often look to meta-analyses to identify effective practices to use with students with disabilities. The number of meta-analyses in special education has also expanded in recent years. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of reporting in meta-analyses focused on mathematics interventions for students with or at risk of disabilities. We applied 53 quality indicators (QIs) across eight categories based on recommendations from Talbott et al. to 22 mathematics intervention meta-analyses published between 2000 and 2020. Overall, the meta-analyses met 61% of QIs and results indicated that meta-analyses most frequently met QIs related to providing a clear purpose (95%) and data analysis plan (77%), whereas meta-analyses typically met fewer QIs related to describing participants (39%) and explaining the abstract screening process (48%). We discuss the variation in quality indicator scores within and across the quality categories and provide recommendations for future researchers.

scholarly journals STROBE-MR: Guidelines for strengthening the reporting of Mendelian randomization studies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Davey Smith ◽  
Neil M Davies ◽  
Niki Dimou ◽  
Matthias Egger ◽  
Valentina Gallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Mr Studies ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Mr Guidance ◽  
Quality And Reliability

While the number of studies using Mendelian randomization (MR) methods has grown exponentially in the last decade, the quality of reporting of these studies often has been poor. Similar to other reporting guidelines such as CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for randomised trials and STROBE (STrenghtening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) for observational studies in epidemiology, the STROBE-MR working group aims to provide guidance to authors on how to improve reporting of MR studies and help readers, reviewers, and journal editors to evaluate the quality of the presented evidence. Empirical evidence indicates that many reports of MR studies do not clearly state or examine the various assumptions of MR methods and report insufficient details on the data sources, which makes it hard to evaluate the quality and reliability of the results. The STROBE-MR guidance covers both one sample and two sample MR studies. At present, the draft checklist consists of 20 items, organized into the title and abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. As these guidelines aim to reach the entire MR community, we would like to give everyone the opportunity to contribute their comments. The following draft of the STROBE-MR checklist is open for public discussion and all feedback will be taken into account during its next revision. For feedback, please use the comment section below this post on PeerJ Preprints. We hope the final guidelines will serve the entire community and contribute to improving the reporting of MR studies in the future.

scholarly journals Quality of reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research: a methodological review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter C. Emary ◽  
Kent J. Stuber ◽  
Lawrence Mbuagbaw ◽  
Mark Oremus ◽  
Paul S. Nolet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Mixed Methods Research ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Health Care Research ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Chiropractic Research

Abstract Background Mixed methods designs are increasingly used in health care research to enrich findings. However, little is known about the frequency of use of this methodology in chiropractic research, or the quality of reporting among chiropractic studies using mixed methods. Objective To quantify the use and quality of mixed methods in chiropractic research, and explore the association of study characteristics (e.g., authorship, expertise, journal impact factor, country and year of publication) with reporting quality. Methods We will conduct a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature to identify all chiropractic mixed methods studies published from inception of each database to December 31, 2020. Articles reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, or mixed qualitative methods, will be included. Pairs of reviewers will perform article screening, data extraction, risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and appraisal of reporting quality using the Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) guideline. We will explore the correlation between GRAMMS and MMAT scores, and construct generalized estimating equations to explore factors associated with reporting quality. Discussion This will be the first methodological review to examine the reporting quality of published mixed methods studies involving chiropractic research. The results of our review will inform opportunities to improve reporting in chiropractic mixed methods studies. Our results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed publication and presented publicly at conferences and as part of a doctoral thesis.

Quality of design and reporting of animal research in peritoneal dialysis: A scoping review

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 394-404
Author(s):  
Janusz Witowski ◽  
Dorota Sikorska ◽  
András Rudolf ◽  
Izabela Miechowicz ◽  
Julian Kamhieh-Milz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peritoneal Dialysis ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Size Estimation ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
The Impact

The concerns about reproducibility and validity of animal studies are partly related to poor experimental design and reporting. Here, we undertook a scoping review of the literature to determine the extent and quality of reporting of animal studies on peritoneal dialysis (PD). Online databases were searched to identify 567 relevant original articles published between 1979 and 2018. These were analyzed with respect to bibliographic parameters and general aspects of animal experimentation. A subgroup of 120 studies was analyzed in detail in terms of the impact on the reporting quality of the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines for animal studies. The number of animal studies on PD increased continuously over the years with a thematic shift toward long-term preservation of the peritoneum as a dialyzing organ. There were significant deficiencies in research design with the lack of sample size estimation, randomization, and blinding being the commonest shortcomings. The description of animal numbers, housing conditions, use of medication, and statistical analysis was incomplete. The introduction in 2010 of the ARRIVE guidelines produced very little improvement in the completeness of reporting regardless of journal impact factor. The animal studies on PD suffer from deficits in experimental protocols and transparent reporting. These drawbacks need to be corrected to ensure high-quality and much-needed animal research in PD.

scholarly journals Quality of reporting for randomised clinical trials published in Latin American and Spanish journals: A protocol for a systematic survey of three clinical specialities

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e036148
Author(s):  
Vivienne C Bachelet ◽  
Víctor A Carrasco ◽  
Fabiana Bravo-Córdova ◽  
Ruben A Díaz ◽  
Francisca J Lizana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Systematic Survey ◽  
Secondary Analyses ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Changes Over Time ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Internal And External Validity

IntroductionQuality of reporting refers to how published articles communicate how the research was done and what was found. Gaps and imprecisions of reporting hamper the assessment of the methodological quality and internal and external validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) are a set of evidence-based recommendations of the minimum elements to be included in the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure a complete and transparent account of what was done, how it was done and what was found. Few studies have been conducted on the impact of CONSORT on RCTs published in Latin American and Spanish journals. We aim to assess the reporting quality of RCTs of three clinical specialities published in Spanish and Latin American journals, as well as to assess changes over time and associations of quality with journal and country indicators.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic survey of all RCTs published in Spanish-language journals in three clinical fields (dentistry, neurology and geriatrics) from 1990 to 2018. We will include RCTs from previous work that has identified all RCTs on these medical fields published in Spain and Latin America. We will update this work via handsearching of relevant journals. Assessment of quality of reporting will be conducted independently and in duplicate using the CONSORT 2010 Statement. We will also extract journal and country indicators. We will conduct descriptive statistics and secondary analyses considering the year, country, and journal of publication, among others.Ethics and disseminationThe Universidad de Santiago de Chile’s ethics committee approved the protocol. We will disseminate the results of this work in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference proceedings. We expect to raise awareness among researchers, journal editors and funders on the importance of training in reporting guidelines and using them from the inception of RCT protocols.

scholarly journals Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoqin Wang ◽  
Yaolong Chen ◽  
Nan Yang ◽  
Wei Deng ◽  
Qi Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Quality Of Reporting

Assessment of Reporting Quality in Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture for Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Using the Consort Statement and Stricta Guidelines

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingchun Zeng ◽  
Guohua Lin ◽  
Lixia Li ◽  
Liming Lu ◽  
Chuyun Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Consort Statement ◽  
Allocation Concealment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objectives To evaluate the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for post-stroke rehabilitation in order to provide information to facilitate transparent and more complete reporting of acupuncture RCTs in this field. Methods Multiple databases were searched from their inception through September 2015. Quality of reporting for included papers was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) guidelines. Each item was scored 1 if it was reported, or 0 if it was not clearly stated. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Cohen's κ-statistics were calculated to assess agreement between the two reviewers. Results A total of 87 RCTs were included in the full text. Based on CONSORT, good reporting was evident for items “Randomised’ in the title or abstract’, ‘Participants’, ‘Statistical methods’, ‘Recruitment’, ‘Baseline data’, and ‘Outcomes and estimation’, with positive rates >80%. However, the quality of reporting for the items ‘Trial design’, ‘Outcomes’, ‘Sample size’, ‘Allocation concealment’, ‘Implementation’, ‘Blinding’, ‘Flow chart’, ‘Intent-to-treat analysis’, and ‘Ancillary analyses’ was very poor with positive rates <10%. Based on STRICTA, the items ‘Number of needle insertions per subject per session’, ‘Responses sought’, and ‘Needle type’ had poor reporting with positive rates <50%. Substantial agreement was observed for most items and good agreement was observed for some items. Conclusions The reporting quality of RCTs in acupuncture for post-stroke rehabilitation is unsatisfactory and needs improvement.

scholarly journals Quality Reporting of Mixed Methods Research in Tourism-Related Studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (10(6)) ◽  
pp. 1794-1810
Author(s):  
CH Van Heerden
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Mixed Methods Research ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Postgraduate Students ◽  
Quality Reporting

The aim of this study is to gain scientific insight into internationally-accepted criteria for quality reporting of mixed methods research (MMR). Articles published post-2012 in a particular journal, which referred to “mixed methods” and “tourism”, and reported that qualitative and quantitative data were collected, were drawn from Google Scholar and Scopus. The reporting quality of these studies was analysed according to the GRAMMS framework (Good Reporting of a Mixed Methods Study). Most of the articles in the data set did not report on all the elements embedded in GRAMMS. It must not be seen as a reflection of the quality of the MMR design itself, nor is the study flawed. It indicates gaps in the reporting of important MMR elements that could be addressed in future research. Exemplars were identified that could serve as case studies for researchers in terms of the quality of reporting on MMR. Editorial boards should adopt guidelines on how MMR could be presented in articles submitted to their journals. These guidelines could assist authors in preparing their articles to conform to international standards on the reporting of MMR studies. Peer reviewers should use the guidelines to judge the quality of reporting on MMR methodology in articles under review. This study could also serve as a future reference for researchers, postgraduate students and supervisors who aim to incorporate MMR in their research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document