Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: The EQUATOR Network's Survey of Guideline Authors

Iveta Simera,Douglas G Altman,David Moher,Kenneth F Schulz,John Hoey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050139

2008-06-24

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:<p>Iveta Simera and colleagues survey the authors of 37 guidelines on reporting health research.</p>

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

[A Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Health Care: the RIGHT Statement].

Yaolong Chen,Kehu Yang,Ana Marusic,Amir Qaseem,Joerg J. Meerpohl,Signe Flottorp,Elie A. Akl,Holger J. Schunemann,Edwin S. Y. Chan,Yngve Falck-Ytter,Faruque Ahmed,Sarah Barber,Chiehfeng Chen,Mingming Zhang,Bin Xu,Jinhui Tian,Fujian Song,Hongcai Shang,Kun Tang,Qi Wang,Susan L. Norris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/m16-1565

IF: 39.2

2016-01-01

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:The quality of reporting practice guidelines is often poor, and there is no widely accepted guidance or standards for such reporting in health care. The international RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) Working Group was established to address this gap. The group followed an existing framework for developing guidelines for health research reporting and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach. It developed a checklist and an explanation and elaboration statement. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of practice guidelines: basic information (items 1 to 4), background (items 5 to 9), evidence (items 10 to 12), recommendations (items 13 to 15), review and quality assurance (items 16 and 17), funding and declaration and management of interests (items 18 and 19), and other information (items 20 to 22). The RIGHT checklist can assist developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a guideline.
GoodReports: developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines

Caroline Struthers,James Harwood,Jennifer Anne de Beyer,Paula Dhiman,Patricia Logullo,Michael Schlüssel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01402-x

2021-10-17

Abstract:Background: Th EQUATOR Network improves the quality and transparency in health research, primarily by promoting awareness and use of reporting guidelines. In 2018, the UK EQUATOR Centre launched GoodReports.org , a website that helps authors find and use reporting guidelines. This paper describes the tool's development so far. We describe user experience and behaviour of using GoodReports.org both inside and outside a journal manuscript submission process. We intend to use our findings to inform future development and testing of the tool. Methods: We conducted a survey to collect data on user experience of the GoodReports website. We cross-checked a random sample of 100 manuscripts submitted to a partner journal to describe the level of agreement between the tool's checklist recommendation and what we would have recommended. We compared the proportion of authors submitting a completed reporting checklist alongside their manuscripts between groups exposed or not exposed to the GoodReports tool. We also conducted a study comparing completeness of reporting of manuscript text before an author received a reporting guideline recommendation from GoodReports.org with the completeness of the text subsequently submitted to a partner journal. Results: Seventy percent (423/599) of survey respondents rated GoodReports 8 or more out of 10 for usefulness, and 74% (198/267) said they had made changes to their manuscript after using the website. We agreed with the GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation in 84% (72/86) of cases. Of authors who completed the guideline finder questionnaire, 14% (10/69) failed to submit a completed checklist compared to 30% (41/136) who did not use the tool. Of the 69 authors who received a GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation, 20 manuscript pairs could be reviewed before and after use of GoodReports. Five included more information in their methods section after exposure to GoodReports. On average, authors reported 57% of necessary reporting items before completing a checklist on GoodReports.org and 60% after. Conclusion: The data suggest that reporting guidance is needed early in the writing process, not at submission stage. We are developing GoodReports by adding more reporting guidelines and by creating editable article templates. We will test whether GoodReports users write more complete study reports in a randomised trial targeting researchers starting to write health research articles.
Reporting guidelines for evidence‐based practice projects: A Delphi study and publication checklist

Madeleine Whalen,Kim Bissett,Judy Ascenzi,Chakra Budhathoki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12748

2024-10-05

Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing

Abstract:Background Evidence‐based practice (EBP) is the cornerstone of sound patient care. Despite the known importance of disseminating EBP, of the 600 reporting guidelines registered with the EQUATOR network, none exist on reporting an EBP project. This lack of guidance leads to publications that lack rigor and discourages more novice writers who may not know where to begin. Aims The purpose of this study was to establish Reporting Guidelines for EBP projects by achieving consensus among subject matter experts (SMEs) regarding the required components for a high‐quality report. Methods This study followed a modified Delphi technique. The first round solicited free‐text responses regarding reporting sections and sub‐sections. The team analyzed these results and incorporated information from the literature to generate items for the second round. In the second and third rounds, participants ranked each section on a Likert scale of 1–4 (not relevant to extremely relevant) and provided free‐text revision suggestions. Items that reached a 70% consensus moved from one round to the next. Results SMEs reached consensus on 6 sections and 30 sub‐sections. Sections address the process for determining best practice recommendations as well as implementation into practice. Headers include (1) "Introduction," (2) "EBP Design," (3) "Methods to Generate Recommendations," (4) "Evidence Findings," (5) "Implementation," and (6) "Conclusion." All items are unaffiliated with specific EBP models, hierarchies, or question formats. Linking Evidence to Action The Reporting Guidelines for EBP Projects is a checklist of items with associated descriptors that should be addressed in articles reporting an EBP project. The intention is to provide a roadmap of the items required to publish EBP efforts. It is meant to create a set of expectation for journal editors to provide concrete guidance for authors and elevate the quality and quantity of EBP projects in the literature.

nursing
Quality of reporting web-based and non-web-based survey studies: What authors, reviewers and consumers should consider

Tarek Turk,Mohamed Tamer Elhady,Sherwet Rashed,Mariam Abdelkhalek,Somia Ahmed Nasef,Ashraf Mohamed Khallaf,Abdelrahman Tarek Mohammed,Andrew Wassef Attia,Purushottam Adhikari,Mohamed Alsabbahi Amin,Kenji Hirayama,Nguyen Tien Huy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194239

IF: 3.7

2018-06-18

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background: Several influential aspects of survey research have been under-investigated and there is a lack of guidance on reporting survey studies, especially web-based projects. In this review, we aim to investigate the reporting practices and quality of both web- and non-web-based survey studies to enhance the quality of reporting medical evidence that is derived from survey studies and to maximize the efficiency of its consumption. Methods: Reporting practices and quality of 100 random web- and 100 random non-web-based articles published from 2004 to 2016 were assessed using the SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE (SURGE). The CHERRIES guideline was also used to assess the reporting quality of Web-based studies. Results: Our results revealed a potential gap in the reporting of many necessary checklist items in both web-based and non-web-based survey studies including development, description and testing of the questionnaire, the advertisement and administration of the questionnaire, sample representativeness and response rates, incentives, informed consent, and methods of statistical analysis. Conclusion: Our findings confirm the presence of major discrepancies in reporting results of survey-based studies. This can be attributed to the lack of availability of updated universal checklists for quality of reporting standards. We have summarized our findings in a table that may serve as a roadmap for future guidelines and checklists, which will hopefully include all types and all aspects of survey research.
EQUATOR Network Mapping Review for Dysphagia Research

Catriona M. Steele,Ryan J. Burdick,Justine Dallal-York,Yael Shapira-Galitz,Sophia Werden Abrams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_ajslp-23-00306

2024-08-18

American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

Abstract:Purpose: The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative aimed at improving published health research through use of reporting guidelines. We conducted a review to determine the extent to which EQUATOR Network guidelines contain recommendations relevant for dysphagia research in human subjects. Method: We downloaded all 542 EQUATOR Network guidelines on November 8, 2022. Each guideline was reviewed by two independent raters and judged for relevance to dysphagia and related fields (e.g., otolaryngology, gastroenterology). Dysphagia-relevant guidelines pertaining to quantitative human subjects research were further inspected to identify reporting guidance regarding (a) general research elements (e.g., data collection, statistical methods), (b) participant characteristics (e.g., demographics, accrual, randomization), (c) screening and clinical/noninstrumental assessments, (d) videofluoroscopic examinations, (e) flexible endoscopic examinations, (f) other instrumentation in swallowing research, (g) dysphagia treatment, (h) patient-/care provider–reported outcome measures, and (i) any other narrowly specified focus relevant for research on swallowing. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Results: Of 542 guidelines, 156 addressed quantitative research in human subjects relevant to dysphagia. Of these, 104 addressed general research elements and 108 addressed participant characteristics. Only 14 guidelines partially addressed the other topics of interest, and none addressed elements relevant to reporting videofluoroscopic or endoscopic assessments of swallowing. Conclusions: We were unable to find guidelines with specific relevance to reporting key methods in dysphagia research. This lack of guidance illustrates a gap that hinders the critical appraisal of research quality in the field of dysphagia. Our review highlights the need to develop dysphagia-specific tools for critical appraisal and guidance regarding adequate research reporting. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25014017

rehabilitation,audiology & speech-language pathology,linguistics
Introducing SoNHR-Reporting guidelines for Social Networks In Health Research

Douglas A Luke,Edward Tsai,Bobbi J Carothers,Sara Malone,Beth Prusaczyk,Todd B Combs,Mia T Vogel,Jennifer Watling Neal,Zachary P Neal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285236

IF: 3.7

2023-12-14

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Objective: The overall goal of this work is to produce a set of recommendations (SoNHR-Social Networks in Health Research) that will improve the reporting and dissemination of social network concepts, methods, data, and analytic results within health sciences research. Methods: This study used a modified-Delphi approach for recommendation development consistent with best practices suggested by the EQUATOR health sciences reporting guidelines network. An initial set of 28 reporting recommendations was developed by the author team. A group of 67 (of 147 surveyed) experienced network and health scientists participated in an online feedback survey. They rated the clarity and importance of the individual recommendations, and provided qualitative feedback on the coverage, usability, and dissemination opportunities of the full set of recommendations. After examining the feedback, a final set of 18 recommendations was produced. Results: The final SoNHR reporting guidelines are comprised of 18 recommendations organized within five domains: conceptualization (how study research questions are linked to network conceptions or theories), operationalization (how network science portions of the study are defined and operationalized), data collection & management (how network data are collected and managed), analyses & results (how network results are analyzed, visualized, and reported), and ethics & equity (how network-specific human subjects, equity, and social justice concerns are reported). We also present a set of exemplar published network studies which can be helpful for seeing how to apply the SoNHR recommendations in research papers. Finally, we discuss how different audiences can use these reporting guidelines. Conclusions: These are the first set of formal reporting recommendations of network methods in the health sciences. Consistent with EQUATOR goals, these network reporting recommendations may in time improve the quality, consistency, and replicability of network science across a wide variety of important health research areas.
Quality of Critical Care Clinical Practice Guidelines: Assessment with AGREE II Instrument.

Zhonghua Chen,Yucai Hong,Ning Liu,Zhongheng Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.08.011

IF: 9.375

2018-01-01

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia

Abstract:Study objective: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are cornerstones for the management of critically ill patients. Numerous CPGs have been generated in critical care medicine, but their qualities have never been systematically appraised. The aim of the present study was to systematically assess the quality of critical care CPGs. Design: A systematic electronic search was performed in PubMed and Scopus. All critical care CPGs were included for analysis. Setting: Not applicable. Patients: Not applicable. Intervention: None. Measurements: The Appraisal of guidelines for research & evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was employed to appraise the quality. CPGs were assessed independently by three raters and intraclass correlation coefficient to represent the agreement among raters. Main results: A total of 89 CPGs were included for quantitative analysis. The results showed that domaffil (scope and purpose) had the highest scores (0.93, IQR: 0.89-0.98) and domain 2 (stakeholder involvement) had the lowest scores (0.37, IQR: 0.30-0.46). The overall score was 0.83 (IQR: 0.67-0.83). Publication year was not associated with scaled scores in each domain. Domain 2 (stakeholder involvement) was significantly associated with the number of societies (coefficient: 0.702, p = 0.033). Also, greater number of societies were associated with higher scaled scores of domain 3 (coefficient: 0.768, p = 0.027), 4 (coefficient: 0.730, p = 0.029) and 5 (coefficient: 0.995, p = 0.023). Conclusions: The study showed that the reporting quality of critical care CPGs were suboptimal. The reporting quality varied across the six domains, with the highest quality in domain 1 and lowest quality in domain 2. Strenuous efforts need to be made to improve the reporting of critical care CPGs.
Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals

F. Hua,T. Walsh,A.-M. Glenny,H. Worthington

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516657803

2016-07-21

Journal of Dental Research

Abstract:The objectives of this study were 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use reporting guidelines (RGs); 2) to identify factors related to RG endorsement; and 3) to assess the knowledge, opinions, and future plans of dental journal editors in chief (EICs) on RGs. A total of 109 peer-reviewed and original research–oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2015 were included. The “instructions to authors” and “instructions to reviewers” of these journals were identified and retrieved from journals’ official websites. Any mention of RGs or other related policies were sought and extracted. In addition, an anonymous survey of the EICs of the included journals was conducted with a validated questionnaire. All 109 journals provided “instructions to authors,” among which 55 (50.5%) mentioned RGs. Only the CONSORT (45.0%), PRISMA (13.8%), and STROBE (12.8%) guidelines were mentioned by >10% of the included journals. Statistical analyses suggest that RGs were more frequently mentioned by SCIE-indexed journals ( P < 0.001), higher-impact journals ( P = 0.002), and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations ( P < 0.001). “Instructions to reviewers” were available online for only 9 journals (8.3%), 3 of which mentioned RGs. For the EIC survey, the response rate was 32.1% (35 of 109). Twenty-six editors (74.3%) stated that they knew what RGs were before receiving our questionnaire. Twenty-four editors (68.6%) believed that RGs should be adopted by all refereed dental journals where appropriate. RGs are important tools for enhancing research reporting and reducing avoidable research waste, but currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals. Joint efforts by all stakeholders to further promote RG usage in dentistry are needed.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Protocol-developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines (eMERGe)

E F France,N Ring,J Noyes,M Maxwell,R Jepson,E Duncan,R Turley,D Jones,I Uny

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0068-0

2015-11-25

Abstract:Background: Designing and implementing high-quality health care services and interventions requires robustly synthesised evidence. Syntheses of qualitative research studies can provide evidence of patients' experiences of health conditions; intervention feasibility, appropriateness and acceptability to patients; and advance understanding of health care issues. The unique, interpretive, theory-based meta-ethnography synthesis approach is suited to conveying patients' views and developing theory to inform service design and delivery. However, meta-ethnography reporting is often poor quality, which discourages trust in, and use of, meta-ethnography findings. Users of evidence syntheses require reports that clearly articulate analytical processes and findings. Tailored research reporting guidelines can raise reporting standards but none exists for meta-ethnography. This study aims to create an evidence-based meta-ethnography reporting guideline articulating the methodological standards and depth of reporting required to improve reporting quality. Methods/design: The mixed-methods design of this National Institute of Health Research-funded study (http://www.stir.ac.uk/emerge/) follows good practice in research reporting guideline development comprising: (1) a methodological systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015024709) to identify recommendations and guidance in conducting/reporting meta-ethnography; (2) a review and audit of published meta-ethnographies to identify good practice principles and develop standards in conduct/reporting; (3) an online workshop and Delphi studies to agree guideline content with 45 international qualitative synthesis experts and 45 other stakeholders including patients; (4) development and wide dissemination of the guideline and its accompanying detailed explanatory document, a report template for National Institute of Health Research commissioned meta-ethnographies, and training materials on guideline use. Discussion: Meta-ethnography, devised in the field of education, is now used widely in other disciplines. Methodological advances relevant to meta-ethnography conduct exist. The extent of discipline-specific adaptations of meta-ethnography and the fit of any adaptions with the underpinning philosophy of meta-ethnography require investigation. Well-reported meta-ethnography findings could inform clinical decision-making. A bespoke meta-ethnography reporting guideline is needed to improve reporting quality, but to be effective potential users must know it exists, trust it and use it. Therefore, a rigorous study has been designed to develop and promote a guideline. By raising reporting quality, the guideline will maximise the likelihood that high-quality meta-ethnographies will contribute robust evidence to improve health care and patient outcomes.
Comprehensive Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (CCQR): Reporting Guideline for Global Health Qualitative Research Methods

Priyanka Sinha,Binita Paudel,Tamara Mosimann,Hanan Ahmed,Gaotswake Patience Kovane,Miriam Moagi,Angel Phuti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21081005

2024-07-30

Abstract:Globally, the demand for qualitative research has risen, driven by the health sector's need for in-depth investigation of complex issues behind any phenomenon that may be inadequately comprehended and that other research methods cannot explore, uncover, or describe. The authors aimed to improve the accessibility and comprehensiveness of reporting guidelines for qualitative research. A comprehensive review of scientific articles was conducted on PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, and Embase, and it retrieved 1989 articles plus 13 more articles through the snowball method. After screening, 17 key articles were identified, which led to the development of Comprehensive Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research that comprises 14 categories, offering key elements in an organized table. This novel guideline complements the two widely used guidelines, Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research, by including additional aspects like objectives, existing knowledge, rationale behind methodologies, conclusions, recommendations, and reference citations. The study responds to the rising need for improved qualitative research reporting guidelines in global health.
Evidence-informed guidelines in oral health: insights from a systematic survey

Francisca Verdugo-Paiva,Ana María Rojas-Gómez,Vicente Wielandt,Javiera Peña,Iván Silva-Ruz,Francisco Novillo,Camila Ávila-Oliver,Xavier Bonfill-Cosp,Michael Glick,Alonso Carrasco-Labra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04445-w

2024-06-27

BMC Oral Health

Abstract:Background: Oral diseases are a major global public health problem, impacting the quality of life of those affected. While consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not commonly adhered to among producers of oral health guidelines. This study aimed to systematically identify organizations that develop evidence-informed guidelines in oral health globally and survey the methodological process followed to formulate recommendations. Methods: We searched numerous electronic databases, guideline repositories, and websites of guideline developers, scientific societies, and international organizations (January 2012-October 2023) to identify organizations that develop guidelines addressing any oral health topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of research evidence in their development. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible organizations according to predefined selection criteria and extracted data about the organization's characteristics, key features of their guidelines, and the process followed when formulating formal recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze and summarize data. Results: We included 46 organizations that developed evidence-informed guidelines in oral health. The organizations were mainly professional associations and scientific societies (67%), followed by governmental organizations (28%). In total, organizations produced 55 different guideline document types, most of them containing recommendations for clinical practice (77%). Panels were primarily composed of healthcare professionals (87%), followed by research methodologists (40%), policymakers (24%), and patient partners (18%). Most (60%) of the guidelines reported their funding source, but only one out of three (33%) included a conflict of interest (COI) policy management. The methodology used in the 55 guideline document types varied across the organizations, but only 19 (35%) contained formal recommendations. Half (51%) of the guideline documents referred to a methodology handbook, 46% suggested a structured approach or system for rating the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, and 37% mentioned using a framework to move from evidence to decisions, with the GRADE-EtD being the most widely used (27%). Conclusion: Our findings underscore the need for alignment and standardization of both terminology and methodologies used in oral health guidelines with current international standards to formulate trustworthy recommendations.
What facilitators and barriers might researchers encounter when using reporting guidelines? Part 1: A thematic synthesis

James Harwood,Charlotte Albury,Jennifer Anne de Beyer,Zhaoxiang Bian,Yuting Duan,Shona Kirtley,Michael Schlussel,Lingyun Zhao,Gary S Collins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2238765/v1

2022-01-01

Abstract:Abstract Background Despite endorsement by medical journals, reporting guidelines have only modestly affected reporting quality. We aimed to identify facilitators and barriers that researchers might encounter when using reporting guidelines. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, AMED, WHO Global Index Medicus, SciELO, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP Chinese Medical Journal Database, OSF, and MiRoR for research that collected qualitative data to explore researchers’ experiences of using reporting guidelines, published after 1996 in English, Chinese, Spanish, or Portuguese. We appraised studies using CASP-Qual. For thematic synthesis, we applied descriptive codes to all sentences that reported qualitative findings, then aggregated codes inductively into descriptive themes that captured the codes’ meaning. We interpreted and contextualised possible facilitators and barriers from these descriptive themes to create analytic themes. Results From 18 eligible studies, we developed 12 analytic themes. 1) Researchers may not understand guidance as intended. 2) Researchers report many reasons for using reporting guidelines, and that some are more important than others. 3) Researchers use reporting guidelines for different tasks and want guidance to be delivered in ways that fit their needs. 4) Using reporting guidelines has costs which researchers may feel outweigh benefits. 5) Reporting guidelines may need to be revised and updated for different reasons. 6) Researchers report feeling uncertain or worried if they are unable to report all items. 7) Awareness and accessibility may limit reporting guideline usage. 8) Reporting guidelines may be most beneficial to less experienced researchers, but these researchers may find them harder to use. 9) Researchers seek design advice but reporting guidelines may not be the right place to find it. 10) A reporting guideline's scope must be well-balanced and well-defined. 11) Researchers may have to use multiple reporting guidelines, multiplying complexity and costs. 12) Researchers may use checklists but never read the full guidance. Discussion Few reporting guidelines have been evaluated qualitatively. Many studies used surveys which resulted in thin data and were subject to recall bias. Nevertheless, we identified many potential barriers and facilitators. Our findings will help guideline developers and advocates improve reporting guidance dissemination.
Considerations on guidelines of epidemiologic practice

Gio Batta Gori

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1047-2797(01)00257-5

Abstract:Epidemiologists in the United States have been intrigued for almost two decades by the prospect of guidelines of epidemiologic practice: an issue partially raised by a perceived need for criteria that may distinguish advocacy positions from more conservative interpretations in epidemiology. Preliminary efforts have considered questions of subject protection, of study structure and documentation, and of professional etiquette. Deeper ethical interests have been coalescing around the need for candor and truth in the interpretation of uncertain epidemiologic findings--a need construed to be central to trustworthiness, and whose consideration would bring about a reappraisal of other aspects of epidemiologic practice. Openness about uncertainties would likely develop naturally into a search for ways to measure the relative strength of epidemiologic warnings, as an aid to ranking public health priorities. Principles aimed at resolving ethical, operational, and priority questions become interdependent elements of professional guidelines for epidemiology.
Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement

Michelle Gates,Allison Gates,Dawid Pieper,Ricardo M Fernandes,Andrea C Tricco,David Moher,Sue E Brennan,Tianjing Li,Michelle Pollock,Carole Lunny,Dino Sepúlveda,Joanne E McKenzie,Shannon D Scott,Karen A Robinson,Katja Matthias,Konstantinos I Bougioukas,Paolo Fusar-Poli,Penny Whiting,Stephana J Moss,Lisa Hartling

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-070849

2022-08-09

BMJ

Abstract:Abstract Objective To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Design Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. Participants Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist. Setting International consensus. Intervention Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline. Results From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews. Conclusions PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

medicine, general & internal
The quality of reporting in clinical research: the CONSORT and STROBE initiatives

Davide Bolignano,Francesco Mattace-Raso,Claudia Torino,Graziella D’Arrigo,Samar Abd ElHafeez,Fabio Provenzano,Carmine Zoccali,Giovanni Tripepi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-013-0007-z

2013-04-01

Aging Clinical and Experimental Research

Abstract:Inaccurate reporting of data hampers the generalizability and the correct interpretation of results of scientific medical papers. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiatives, both included in the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) international network, have elaborated appropriate guidelines in order to improve the transparence, clearness and completeness of scientific literature. The CONSORT statement consists of a 25 items checklist and a flow-chart diagram which provide guidance to Authors on how to report randomized clinical trials. The STROBE is a checklist of 22 items which should be addressed when observational studies (case–control, cohort and cross-sectional) are made up. Many editorial committees and prestigious international journals have now embraced these guidelines to improve the quality and methodology of their scientific reports.

geriatrics & gerontology,gerontology
ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi

William T. Gattrell,Patricia Logullo,Esther J. van Zuuren,Amy Price,Ellen L. Hughes,Paul Blazey,Christopher C. Winchester,David Tovey,Keith Goldman,Amrit Pali Hungin,Niall Harrison

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004326

2024-01-25

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:In biomedical research, it is often desirable to seek consensus among individuals who have differing perspectives and experience. This is important when evidence is emerging, inconsistent, limited, or absent. Even when research evidence is abundant, clinical recommendations, policy decisions, and priority-setting may still require agreement from multiple, sometimes ideologically opposed parties. Despite their prominence and influence on key decisions, consensus methods are often poorly reported. Our aim was to develop the first reporting guideline dedicated to and applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research regardless of the objective of the consensus process, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document). We followed methodology recommended by the EQUATOR Network for the development of reporting guidelines: a systematic review was followed by a Delphi process and meetings to finalize the ACCORD checklist. The preliminary checklist was drawn from the systematic review of existing literature on the quality of reporting of consensus methods and suggestions from the Steering Committee. A Delphi panel ( n = 72) was recruited with representation from 6 continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy, and patient perspectives. The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54, and 51 panelists. The preliminary checklist of 56 items was refined to a final checklist of 35 items relating to the article title ( n = 1), introduction ( n = 3), methods ( n = 21), results ( n = 5), discussion ( n = 2), and other information ( n = 3). The ACCORD checklist is the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus-based studies. It will support authors in writing accurate, detailed manuscripts, thereby improving the completeness and transparency of reporting and providing readers with clarity regarding the methods used to reach agreement. Furthermore, the checklist will make the rigor of the consensus methods used to guide the recommendations clear for readers. Reporting consensus studies with greater clarity and transparency may enhance trust in the recommendations made by consensus panels.

medicine, general & internal
A Delphi survey to determine how educational interventions for evidence-based practice should be reported: Stage 2 of the development of a reporting guideline

Anna C Phillips,Lucy K Lewis,Maureen P McEvoy,James Galipeau,Paul Glasziou,Marilyn Hammick,David Moher,Julie K Tilson,Marie T Williams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-159

IF: 3.263

2014-07-31

BMC Medical Education

Abstract:BackgroundUndertaking a Delphi exercise is recommended during the second stage in the development process for a reporting guideline. To continue the development for the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based practice Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) a Delphi survey was undertaken to determine the consensus opinion of researchers, journal editors and educators in evidence-based practice (EBP) regarding the information items that should be reported when describing an educational intervention for EBP.MethodsA four round online Delphi survey was conducted from October 2012 to March 2013. The Delphi panel comprised international researchers, educators and journal editors in EBP. Commencing with an open-ended question, participants were invited to volunteer information considered important when reporting educational interventions for EBP. Over three subsequent rounds participants were invited to rate the importance of each of the Delphi items using an 11 point Likert rating scale (low 0 to 4, moderate 5 to 6, high 7 to 8 and very high >8). Consensus agreement was set a priori as at least 80 per cent participant agreement. Consensus agreement was initially calculated within the four categories of importance (low to very high), prior to these four categories being merged into two (<7 and ≥7). Descriptive statistics for each item were computed including the mean Likert scores, standard deviation (SD), range and median participant scores. Mean absolute deviation from the median (MAD-M) was also calculated as a measure of participant disagreement.ResultsThirty-six experts agreed to participate and 27 (79%) participants completed all four rounds. A total of 76 information items were generated across the four survey rounds. Thirty-nine items (51%) were specific to describing the intervention (as opposed to other elements of study design) and consensus agreement was achieved for two of these items (5%). When the four rating categories were merged into two (<7 and ≥7), 18 intervention items achieved consensus agreement.ConclusionThis Delphi survey has identified 39 items for describing an educational intervention for EBP. These Delphi intervention items will provide the groundwork for the subsequent consensus discussion to determine the final inclusion of items in the GREET, the first reporting guideline for educational interventions in EBP.

education & educational research,education, scientific disciplines
The LEADING Guideline. Reporting Standards for Expert Panel, Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) Studies.

Veerle C Eijsbroek,Katarina Kjell,Andrew Schwartz,Jan R Boehnke,Eiko I Fried,Daniel N Klein,Peik Gustafsson,Isabelle Augenstein,Patrick M Bossuyt,Oscar Kjell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.19.24304526

2024-09-04

Abstract:Background: Accurate assessments of symptoms and illnesses are essential for health research and clinical practice but face many challenges. The absence of a single error free measure is currently addressed by assessment methods involving experts reviewing several sources of information to achieve a more accurate or best estimate assessment. Three bodies of work spanning medicine, psychiatry, and psychology propose similar assessment methods: The Expert Panel, the Best Estimate Diagnosis, and the Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) method. However, the quality of such best estimate assessments is typically very difficult to evaluate due to poor reporting of the assessment methods and when they are reported, the reporting quality varies substantially. Here, we tackle this gap by developing reporting guidelines for such best estimate assessment studies. Methods: The development of the reporting guidelines followed a four stage approach: 1) drafting reporting standards accompanied by rationales and empirical evidence, which were further developed with a patient organization for depression, 2) incorporating expert feedback through a two round Delphi procedure, 3) refining the guideline based on an expert consensus meeting, and 4) testing the guideline by i) having two researchers test it and ii) using it to examine the extent previously published studies report the standards. The last step also provides evidence for the need for the guideline: 10 to 63% (Mean = 33%) of the standards were not reported across thirty randomly selected studies. Results: The LEADING guideline comprises 20 reporting standards related to four groups: The Longitudinal design (four standards); the Appropriate data (four standards); the Evaluation, experts, materials, and procedures (ten standards); and the Validity group (two standards). Conclusions: We hope that the LEADING guideline will be useful in assisting researchers in planning, conducting, reporting, and evaluating research aiming to achieve best estimate assessments.
The Oral Health Statistics Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: Explanation and Elaboration

Al M. Best,Thomas A. Lang,Barbara L. Greenberg,John C. Gunsolley,E. Ioannidou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2024.06.174

IF: 1.9

2024-07-19

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Abstract:Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research—statisticians and trialists from academia and industry—empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the Oral Health Statistics Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to task force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the task force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in JDR Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Reporting study results in primary health care: the CRISP guidelines

William R. Phillips,Elizabeth A. Sturgiss,Sally Kendall,Mehmet Akman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1463423624000458

2024-10-18

Primary Health Care Research & Development

Abstract://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS1463423624000458/resource/name/firstPage-pdf-S1463423624000458a.jpg

primary health care

Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: The EQUATOR Network's Survey of Guideline Authors

[A Reporting Tool for Practice Guidelines in Health Care: the RIGHT Statement].

GoodReports: developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines

Reporting guidelines for evidence‐based practice projects: A Delphi study and publication checklist

Quality of reporting web-based and non-web-based survey studies: What authors, reviewers and consumers should consider

EQUATOR Network Mapping Review for Dysphagia Research

Introducing SoNHR-Reporting guidelines for Social Networks In Health Research

Quality of Critical Care Clinical Practice Guidelines: Assessment with AGREE II Instrument.

Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals

Protocol-developing meta-ethnography reporting guidelines (eMERGe)

Comprehensive Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (CCQR): Reporting Guideline for Global Health Qualitative Research Methods

Evidence-informed guidelines in oral health: insights from a systematic survey

What facilitators and barriers might researchers encounter when using reporting guidelines? Part 1: A thematic synthesis

Considerations on guidelines of epidemiologic practice

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement

The quality of reporting in clinical research: the CONSORT and STROBE initiatives

ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi

A Delphi survey to determine how educational interventions for evidence-based practice should be reported: Stage 2 of the development of a reporting guideline

The LEADING Guideline. Reporting Standards for Expert Panel, Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) Studies.

The Oral Health Statistics Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies and Clinical Trials in Oral Health Research: Explanation and Elaboration

Reporting study results in primary health care: the CRISP guidelines