scholarly journals A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. de Jong ◽  
E. M. van der Willik ◽  
J. Milders ◽  
C. G. N. Voorend ◽  
Rachael L. Morton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Publication Rate ◽  
T Test ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Positive Trend ◽  
Bonferroni Correction ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Background Reviews of qualitative studies allow for deeper understanding of concepts and findings beyond the single qualitative studies. Concerns on study reporting quality led to the publication of the COREQ-guidelines for qualitative studies in 2007, followed by the ENTREQ-guidelines for qualitative reviews in 2012. The aim of this meta-review is to: 1) investigate the uptake of the COREQ- and ENTREQ- checklists in qualitative reviews; and 2) compare the quality of reporting of the primary qualitative studies included within these reviews prior- and post COREQ-publication. Methods Reviews were searched on 02-Sept-2020 and categorized as (1) COREQ- or (2) ENTREQ-using, (3) using both, or (4) non-COREQ/ENTREQ. Proportions of usage were calculated over time. COREQ-scores of the primary studies included in these reviews were compared prior- and post COREQ-publication using T-test with Bonferroni correction. Results 1.695 qualitative reviews were included (222 COREQ, 369 ENTREQ, 62 both COREQ/ENTREQ and 1.042 non-COREQ/ENTREQ), spanning 12 years (2007–2019) demonstrating an exponential publication rate. The uptake of the ENTREQ in reviews is higher than the COREQ (respectively 28% and 17%), and increases over time. COREQ-scores could be extracted from 139 reviews (including 2.775 appraisals). Reporting quality improved following the COREQ-publication with 13 of the 32 signalling questions showing improvement; the average total score increased from 15.15 to 17.74 (p-value < 0.001). Conclusion The number of qualitative reviews increased exponentially, but the uptake of the COREQ and ENTREQ was modest overall. Primary qualitative studies show a positive trend in reporting quality, which may have been facilitated by the publication of the COREQ.

scholarly journals Using digital interventions to improve the cardiometabolic health of populations: a meta-review of reporting quality

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 867-879 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrienne O’Neil ◽  
Fiona Cocker ◽  
Patricia Rarau ◽  
Shaira Baptista ◽  
Mandy Cassimatis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Health Programs ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Digital Interventions ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Research Findings

Abstract Objectives. We conducted a meta-review to determine the reporting quality of user-centered digital interventions for the prevention and management of cardiometabolic conditions. Materials and Methods. Using predetermined inclusion criteria, systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2015 were identified from 3 databases. To assess whether current evidence is sufficient to inform wider uptake and implementation of digital health programs, we assessed the quality of reporting of research findings using (1) endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, (2) a quality assessment framework (eg, Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool), and (3) 8 parameters of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile HEalth Applications and onLine TeleHealth (CONSORT-eHEALTH) guidelines (developed in 2010). Results. Of the 33 systematic reviews covering social media, Web-based programs, mobile health programs, and composite modalities, 6 reported using the recommended PRISMA guidelines. Seven did not report using a quality assessment framework. Applying the CONSORT-EHEALTH guidelines, reporting was of mild to moderate strength. Discussion. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-review to provide a comprehensive analysis of the quality of reporting of research findings for a range of digital health interventions. Our findings suggest that the evidence base and quality of reporting in this rapidly developing field needs significant improvement in order to inform wider implementation and uptake. Conclusion. The inconsistent quality of reporting of digital health interventions for cardiometabolic outcomes may be a critical impediment to real-world implementation.

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 Lista de comprobación para mejorar la información sobre fármacos en la prensa: la importancia de informar sobre las fases y la incertidumbre de la investigación = A checklist for improving drug information in the general press: the importance of reporting on the phases and uncertainty of research

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 203
Author(s):  
Fèlix Bosch ◽  
Clàudia Escalas ◽  
Ainoa Forteza ◽  
Elisabet Serés ◽  
Gonzalo Casino
Keyword(s):  
Mass Media ◽  
Health Communication ◽  
Drug Information ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Current Phase ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Interest In Science ◽  
News Reports ◽  
Medios De Comunicacion

Resumen: El interés de la ciudadanía por la ciencia es consecuente con que los medios de comunicación difundan también información sobre fármacos. Sin embargo, se requieren más estudios cuantitativos y cualitativos que analicen este tipo de información en la prensa generalista. En este artículo se revisan los estudios que han analizado las noticias sobre fármacos, así como las herramientas disponibles para evaluar su calidad. Se revisan aspectos cualitativos a considerar al informar sobre fármacos en investigación o ya comercializados: la necesidad de contrastar las fuentes, citar la publicación de origen y emplear un lenguaje comprensible. Asimismo, se recomienda informar tanto de beneficios como de riesgos, y hacerlo con valores relativos y absolutos; evitar la generación de falsas expectativas y contextualizar los aspectos relacionados con la financiación. Además, se sugiere explicitar la fase de investigación en la que se encuentra el fármaco para así orientar sobre las posibilidades y plazos para su comercialización, y sobre las fuentes de información más adecuadas. Con esta revisión y las consideraciones planteadas, este artículo pretende promover una reflexión general para mejorar la calidad de las noticias sobre fármacos, a la vez que proporciona una primera lista de comprobación útil para comunicadores y periodistas científicos.Palabras clave: comunicación en salud; divulgación; fármacos; información; investigación; medicamentos; medios de comunicación; prensa.Abstract: Given the public’s interest in science, it is logical that the mass media disseminate information about drugs. However, few quantitative or qualitative studies have analyzed the way this type of information is presented in the lay press. This article reviews the studies that have analyzed news reports about drugs and discusses the tools that are available to evaluate the quality of such reports. It also examines qualitative aspects when reporting on drugs in research or when have already been marketed: the need to check the sources, to cite the original reports, and to use language that is easy to understand. To avoid creating false expectations, news reports should inform readers about risks as well as benefits in both relative and absolute terms and put financial aspects in context. Moreover, it is important to specify the drug’s current phase of development to inform if and when it is likely to be commercialized. Finally, news reports about drugs should point readers to the most appropriate sources to obtain further information. This article aims to promote general reflection and ultimately to improve the quality of reporting about drugs in the general press and to provide a checklist for science communicators and journalists.Keywords: health communication; popularization; drugs; information; investigation; medicines; media; press.

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.

scholarly journals Internet Financial Reporting: Studi Komparasi Bank Umum Syariah Di Indonesia Dan Malaysia

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
pp. 886
Author(s):  
Taqiyah Dinda Insani ◽  
Noven Suprayogi
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
T Test ◽  
Quantitative Approach ◽  
Financial Reporting Quality ◽  
Islamic Banks ◽  
The Difference

The purpose of this study was to determine the differences of Internet Financial Reporting Quality. This study was using quantitative approach with independent sample t test and mann whitney u test. The population of this study was official website of islamic banks in Indonesia and Malaysia. determination of the number of samples using (sampling jenuh), where all of the population is used as a sampel. Data that being used was secondary data. The data was collected from official website of the sentral banks in each country. The result of this study showed that there was significant differences of Internet Fianncial Reporting Quality between Indonesia and Malaysia. The difference is caused there are significant differences between the quality of content and timeliness components. Meanwhile, there is no differences between technology and user support components.

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.

A Systematic Literature Review on the Application of Rasch Analysis in Musculoskeletal Disease — A Special Interest Group Report of OMERACT 11

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying-Ying Leung ◽  
May-Ee Png ◽  
Philip Conaghan ◽  
Alan Tennant
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Systematic Literature Review ◽  
Rasch Model ◽  
Special Interest ◽  
Rasch Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Over Time

Objective.The Rasch measurement model provides robust analysis of the internal construct validity of outcome measures. We reviewed the application of Rasch analysis in musculoskeletal medicine as part of the work leading to discussion in a Special Interest Group in Rasch Analysis at Outcome Measures in Rheumatology 11.Methods.A systematic literature review of SCOPUS and MEDLINE was performed (January 1, 1985, to February 29, 2012. Original research reports in English using “Rasch” or “Item Response Theory” in musculoskeletal diseases were assessed by 2 independent reviewers. The topics of focus and analysis methodology details were recorded.Results.Of 212 articles reviewed, 114 were included. The number of publications rose from 1 in 1991–1992 to 23 in 2011–February 2012. Disease areas included rheumatoid arthritis (28%), osteoarthritis (16.6%), and general musculoskeletal disorders (43%). Sixty-six reports (57.9%) evaluated psychometric properties of existing scales and 35 (30.7%) involved development of new scales. Nine articles (7.9%) were on methodology illustration. Four articles were on item banking and computer adaptive testing. A majority of the articles reported fit statistics, while the basic Rasch model assumption (i.e., unidimensionality) was examined in only 57.2% of the articles. An improvement in reporting qualities with Rasch articles was noted over time. In addition, only 11.4% of the articles provided a transformation table for interval scale measurement in clinical practice.Conclusion.The Rasch model has been increasingly used in rheumatology over the last 2 decades in a wide range of applications. The majority of the articles demonstrated reasonable quality of reporting. Improvements in quality of reporting over time were revealed.

Quality of Split-Mouth Trials in Dentistry: 1998, 2008, and 2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (13) ◽  
pp. 1453-1460
Author(s):  
D. Qin ◽  
F. Hua ◽  
H. He ◽  
S. Liang ◽  
H. Worthington ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Item Checklist ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Over Time

The objectives of this study were to assess the reporting quality and methodological quality of split-mouth trials (SMTs) published during the past 2 decades and to determine whether there has been an improvement in their quality over time. We searched the MEDLINE database via PubMed to identify SMTs published in 1998, 2008, and 2018. For each included SMT, we used the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guideline, CONSORT for within-person trial (WPT) extension, and a new 3-item checklist to assess its trial reporting quality (TRQ), WPT-specific reporting quality (WRQ), and SMT-specific methodological quality (SMQ), respectively. Multivariable generalized linear models were performed to analyze the quality of SMTs over time, adjusting for potential confounding factors. A total of 119 SMTs were included. The mean overall score for the TRQ (score range, 0 to 32), WRQ (0 to 15), and SMQ (0 to 3) was 15.77 (SD 4.51), 6.06 (2.06), and 1.12 (0.70), respectively. The primary outcome was clearly defined in only 28 SMTs (23.5%), and only 27 (22.7%) presented a replicable sample size calculation. Only 45 SMTs (37.8%) provided the rationale for using a split-mouth design. The correlation between body sites was reported in only 5 studies (4.2%) for sample size calculation and 4 studies (3.4%) for statistical results. Only 2 studies (1.7%) performed an appropriate sample size calculation, and 46 (38.7%) chose appropriate statistical methods, both accounting for the correlation among treatment groups and the clustering/multiplicity of measurements within an individual. Results of regression analyses suggested that the TRQ of SMTs improved significantly with time ( P < 0.001), while there was no evidence of improvement in WRQ or SMQ. Both the reporting quality and methodological quality of SMTs still have much room for improvement. Concerted efforts are needed to improve the execution and reporting of SMTs.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document