Reporting Quality of Social and Psychological Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Publications

There has been a recent increase in constraints-led training to assist the development of technical and cognitive skill in sports. While the benefits of constraints-led training appear obvious, the evidence for this type of training is not clear. Therefore, a systematic review of the literature was conducted to establish the effectiveness of this approach to training within interceptive sports. Four databases (Google Scholar, JURN, Mendeley and Science Direct) were searched for journal articles focused on skill acquisition within interceptive sports. A methodological and reporting quality assessment was done to determine the quality of each article. Eighteen articles were selected for review. The results of these two quality assessments revealed poor quality scores for the majority of the studies. However, 77.7% of the studies found a positive effect in skill acquisition following manipulation in training protocol; therefore, the implementation of the constraints-led approach within interceptive sport can be advocated. Key methodological structures were identified as well as aspects of methodology that should be avoided to ensure reliable results for future studies. Further research is required to determine the effectiveness of constraints-led training on interceptive sporting performance.

Download Full-text

What Factors Affect the Methodological and Reporting Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Osteoporosis? Protocol for A Systematic Review

10.37766/inplasy2020.7.0031 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Pengzhong Fang ◽

Yamin Chen ◽

Jinlei Chen ◽

Junhao Sun ◽

Jianshi Tan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽

Practice Guidelines ◽

Reporting Quality

Download Full-text

Reporting quality of the Delphi technique in reporting guidelines: a protocol for a systematic analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024942 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (4) ◽

pp. e024942 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Masahiro Banno ◽

Yasushi Tsujimoto ◽

Yuki Kataoka

Keyword(s):

Health Research ◽

Delphi Technique ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Quality Score ◽

Reporting Guidelines ◽

Systematic Analysis ◽

Modified Delphi ◽

Equator Network ◽

Modified Delphi Technique

IntroductionReporting guidelines are important tools for improving the quality of medical research. The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network’s Library contains a comprehensive and up-to-date database of reporting guidelines relevant to health research. Only 31% of reporting guidelines published from 2010 to 2014 reported using the Delphi technique, and the reporting quality of the Delphi technique in reporting guidelines is unknown even though the use of the Delphi technique was recommended in the guidance for reporting guidelines. We will assess the quality reports of the Delphi technique or modified Delphi technique in reporting guidelines.Methods and analysisThe present study is a systematic analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library. We will include all reporting guidelines in the EQUATOR Network that used the Delphi technique or modified Delphi technique, published since 1 January 2011 and registered in the EQUATOR on or before 31 May 2018. Our primary outcome is the reporting quality of the Delphi technique, measured by the quality score (each item) in the Delphi technique. We will also examine the relationship between the reporting quality score (each item) of the Delphi technique and year of publication, number of authors, impact factor, sources of funding (industry, non-industry), multiple publications and whether the guidelines are published in open access policy.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval will not be applicable for this study. This protocol has been registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and may also present them at conferences.Trial registration numberUMIN000032685.

Download Full-text

Study reporting quality among interventions to reduce antibiotic use is a barrier to evidence-informed policymaking on antimicrobial resistance: systematic review

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy ◽

10.1093/jac/dkz540 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 75 (5) ◽

pp. 1091-1098 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

S Rogers Van Katwyk ◽

J M Grimshaw ◽

M Nkangu ◽

M Mendelson ◽

M Taljaard ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Antimicrobial Resistance ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Complete Information ◽

Antibiotic Use ◽

System Level ◽

Policy Interventions ◽

Sufficient Detail ◽

Study Results

Abstract Background Countries are currently seeking evidence-informed policy options to address antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While rigorous evaluations of AMR interventions are the ideal, they are far from the current reality. Additionally, poor reporting and documentation of AMR interventions impede efforts to use evidence to inform future evaluations and policy interventions. Objectives To critically evaluate reporting quality gaps in AMR intervention research. Methods To evaluate the reporting quality of studies, we conducted a descriptive synthesis and comparative analysis of studies that were included in a recent systematic review of government policy interventions aiming to reduce human antimicrobial use. Reporting quality was assessed using the SQUIRE 2.0 checklist of 18 items for reporting system-level interventions to improve healthcare. Two reviewers independently applied the checklist to 66 studies identified in the systematic review. Results None of the studies included complete information on all 18 SQUIRE items (median score = 10, IQR = 8–11). Reporting quality varied across SQUIRE items, with 3% to 100% of studies reporting the recommended information for each SQUIRE item. Only 20% of studies reported the elements of the intervention in sufficient detail for replication and only 24% reported the mechanism through which the intervention was expected to work. Conclusions Gaps in the reporting of impact evaluations pose challenges for interpreting and replicating study results. Failure to improve reporting practice of policy evaluations is likely to impede efforts to tackle the growing health, social and economic threats posed by AMR.

Download Full-text

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Antibiotic Therapies: A Systematic Review

Clinical Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/cid/ciaa1353 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Anthony D Bai ◽

Adam S Komorowski ◽

Carson K L Lo ◽

Pranav Tandon ◽

Xena X Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Pharmaceutical Industry ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Noninferiority Trials ◽

Noninferiority Margin

Abstract Background Antibiotic noninferiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are used for approval of new antibiotics and making changes to antibiotic prescribing in clinical practice. We conducted a systematic review to assess the methodological and reporting quality of antibiotic noninferiority RCTs. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Food and Drug Administration drug database from inception until November 22, 2019, for noninferiority RCTs comparing different systemic antibiotic therapies. Comparisons between antibiotic types, doses, administration routes, or durations were included. Methodological and reporting quality indicators were based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Results The systematic review included 227 studies. Of these, 135 (59.5%) studies were supported by pharmaceutical industry. Only 83 (36.6%) studies provided a justification for the noninferiority margin. Reporting of both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were done in 165 (72.7%) studies. The conclusion was misleading in 34 (15.0%) studies. The studies funded by pharmaceutical industry were less likely to be stopped early because of logistical reasons (3.0% vs 19.1%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04–.37) and to show inconclusive results (11.1% vs 42.9%; OR = 0.17; 95% CI, .08–.33). The quality of studies decreased over time with respect to blinding, early stopping, reporting of ITT with PP analysis, and having misleading conclusions. Conclusions There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials. Quality can be improved across the entire spectrum from investigators, funding agencies, as well as during the peer-review process. There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials including justification of noninferiority margin, reporting of intention-to-treat analysis with per-protocol analysis, and having conclusions that are concordant with study results. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020165040.

Download Full-text

Letter: Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts Published in Leading Neurosurgical Journals: A Research on Research Study

Neurosurgery ◽

10.1093/neuros/nyz183 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 85 (2) ◽

pp. E397-E397 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

George C Vilanilam

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Research Study ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Research On Research

Download Full-text

The Effectiveness of Dog Population Management: A Systematic Review

Animals ◽

10.3390/ani9121020 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (12) ◽

pp. 1020 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Lauren M. Smith ◽

Sabine Hartmann ◽

Alexandru M. Munteanu ◽

Paolo Dalla Villa ◽

Rupert J. Quinnell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Fertility Control ◽

Population Management ◽

Future Studies ◽

Strength Of Evidence ◽

Worldwide Population ◽

Sample Size Calculations ◽

Quality Study

The worldwide population of domestic dogs is estimated at approximately 700 million, with around 75% classified as “free-roaming”. Where free-roaming dogs exist in high densities, there are significant implications for public health, animal welfare, and wildlife. Approaches to manage dog populations include culling, fertility control, and sheltering. Understanding the effectiveness of each of these interventions is important in guiding future dog population management. We present the results of a systematic review of published studies investigating dog population management, to assess: (1) where and when studies were carried out; (2) what population management methods were used; and (3) what was the effect of the method. We evaluated the reporting quality of the published studies for strength of evidence assessment. The systematic review resulted in a corpus of 39 papers from 15 countries, reporting a wide disparity of approaches and measures of effect. We synthesised the management methods and reported effects. Fertility control was most investigated and had the greatest reported effect on dog population size. Reporting quality was low for power calculations (11%), sample size calculations (11%), and the use of control populations (17%). We provide recommendations for future studies to use common metrics and improve reporting quality, study design, and modelling approaches in order to allow better assessment of the true impact of dog population management.

Download Full-text