scholarly journals Reporting quality of animal experiments of gastric cancer based on the ARRIVE guidelines

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yali Liu ◽  
Yuchen Feng ◽  
Lili Zhang ◽  
Xiaohuan Feng ◽  
Qin Feng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Animal Experiments ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Text Database

Objective: The aim of this study was to use the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to evaluate the quality of reporting of recent gastric cancer animal experiments. Materials and Methods: A literature search of studies was performed using the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database, and Wanfang Database from January 2010 to December 2012. We extracted data using pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was evaluated based on the ARRIVE guidelines. Results: Of the 1816 studies that were identified by our search, 170 were subjected to quantitative analysis using the ARRIVE guidelines. The results of the evaluation based on the ARRIVE guidelines were that 132 studies (77.61%) provided an accurate and concise description of baseline conditions and clinical conditions. Only 2 (1.18%) papers provided relevant certificates of ethical review or institutional guidelines, and 2 (1.18%) papers provided an explanation of animal experiments requiring algorithms and formulas for sample size. Forty-seven (27.65%) studies described in detail how animals were assigned to each experimental group, including the randomization procedure, 2 (1.18%) reported whether blinding was used, and 15 (8.82%) evaluated the limitations of the study. Conclusions: The reporting quality of recent animal experiments of gastric cancer is inadequate. We should improve not only the quality of the methodology but also the reporting quality of the animal experiments.

scholarly journals Reporting quality of animal experiments of gastric cancer based on the ARRIVE guidelines

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yali Liu ◽  
Yuchen Feng ◽  
Lili Zhang ◽  
Xiaohuan Feng ◽  
Qin Feng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Animal Experiments ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Text Database

Objective: The aim of this study was to use the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to evaluate the quality of reporting of recent gastric cancer animal experiments. Materials and Methods: A literature search of studies was performed using the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Journal Full-text Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database, and Wanfang Database from January 2010 to December 2012. We extracted data using pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was evaluated based on the ARRIVE guidelines. Results: Of the 1816 studies that were identified by our search, 170 were subjected to quantitative analysis using the ARRIVE guidelines. The results of the evaluation based on the ARRIVE guidelines were that 132 studies (77.61%) provided an accurate and concise description of baseline conditions and clinical conditions. Only 2 (1.18%) papers provided relevant certificates of ethical review or institutional guidelines, and 2 (1.18%) papers provided an explanation of animal experiments requiring algorithms and formulas for sample size. Forty-seven (27.65%) studies described in detail how animals were assigned to each experimental group, including the randomization procedure, 2 (1.18%) reported whether blinding was used, and 15 (8.82%) evaluated the limitations of the study. Conclusions: The reporting quality of recent animal experiments of gastric cancer is inadequate. We should improve not only the quality of the methodology but also the reporting quality of the animal experiments.

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 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 A systematic evaluation on reporting quality of modern studies on pulmonary heart valve implantation in large animals

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 437-445
Author(s):  
Marcelle Uiterwijk ◽  
Annemijn Vis ◽  
Iris de Brouwer ◽  
Debora van Urk ◽  
Jolanda Kluin
Keyword(s):  
Heart Valve ◽  
Heart Valves ◽  
Animal Experiments ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Large Animal Model ◽  
Large Animal ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Large Animals

Abstract OBJECTIVES Before new heart valves can be implanted safely in humans, animal experiments have to be performed. These animal experiments have to be clearly designed, analysed and reported to assess the accuracy and importance of the findings. We aimed to provide an overview of the reporting and methodological quality of preclinical heart valve research. METHODS We conducted a systematic literature search on biological and mechanical pulmonary valve implantations in large animals. We used the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines to score the quality of reporting in each article. We compared the scores before and after the introduction of the ARRIVE guidelines (2010). RESULTS We screened 348 articles, of which 31 articles were included. The included articles reported a mean of 54.7% adequately scored ARRIVE items (95% confidence interval 52.2–57.3%). We did not identify a difference in reporting quality (54.7% vs 54.8%) between articles published before and after 2010. We found an unclear (lack of description) risk of selection bias, performance bias and detection bias. CONCLUSIONS The reporting quality of studies that implanted bioprosthetic or mechanical valves in the pulmonary position in the large animal model is not on the desired level. The introduction of the ARRIVE guidelines in 2010 did not improve the reporting quality in this field of research. Hereby, we want to emphasize the importance of clearly describing the methods and transparently reporting the results in animal experiments. This is of great importance for the safe translation of new heart valves to the clinic. Clinical trial registration number PROSPERO (CRD42019147895).

scholarly journals Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarissa F. D. Carneiro ◽  
Victor G. S. Queiroz ◽  
Thiago C. Moulin ◽  
Carlos A. M. Carvalho ◽  
Clarissa B. Haas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Time Lag ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Journal Publication ◽  
Similar Range ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Abstract Background Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader’s ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. Methods In this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals. Results Peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication. Conclusions Our results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.

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

The Quality of Reporting of Measures of Precision in Animal Experiments in Implant Dentistry: A Methodological Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 1312-1319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clovis Faggion ◽  
Luisiana Aranda ◽  
Karla Diaz ◽  
Ming-Chieh Shih ◽  
Yu-Kang Tu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Experiments ◽  
Methodological Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Implant Dentistry

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document