Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Muir Gray once said “In the 19th century health was transformed by clear, clean water. In the 21st century health will be transformed by clean, clear knowledge.” Nowadays, substantial articles are published in various magazines. Unless research is adequately reported, the time and resources invested in its conduct is wasted.
Objectives: To use the reporting guidelines Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) to compare the quality of reports between 2004 and 2014.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review (SR) of 400 randomized controlled human trials and 100 SRs published in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library. We randomly selected eligible pieces of research until their number met our required sample size. According to reporting guidelines CONSORT and PRISMA, we assessed these randomized controlled trials and SRs to one of three grades (completely compliant with requirements; generally compliant with requirements, and non-conformant with compliance requirements). Teams of two reviewers will independently screen full texts of reports for eligibility, and abstract data, using standardized, pilot-tested extraction forms. We will conduct univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the association of pre-specified study characteristics (such as funding sources, clinical area, type of intervention, and so on) with the quality of research reporting.
Progress and Discussion: Currently, we are screening these trial and SR reports. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA aim to improve the quality of research reports, but all are much less adopted and adhered to than they should be. Adequate reports of research should describe clearly which questions were addressed and why, what was done, what was shown, and what the findings mean. Our findings will contribute to a set of recommendations to optimize the conduct and reporting of randomized controlled trials and SRs with meta-analysis.
Objectives: To use the reporting guidelines Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) to compare the quality of reports between 2004 and 2014.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review (SR) of 400 randomized controlled human trials and 100 SRs published in MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library. We randomly selected eligible pieces of research until their number met our required sample size. According to reporting guidelines CONSORT and PRISMA, we assessed these randomized controlled trials and SRs to one of three grades (completely compliant with requirements; generally compliant with requirements, and non-conformant with compliance requirements). Teams of two reviewers will independently screen full texts of reports for eligibility, and abstract data, using standardized, pilot-tested extraction forms. We will conduct univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the association of pre-specified study characteristics (such as funding sources, clinical area, type of intervention, and so on) with the quality of research reporting.
Progress and Discussion: Currently, we are screening these trial and SR reports. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA aim to improve the quality of research reports, but all are much less adopted and adhered to than they should be. Adequate reports of research should describe clearly which questions were addressed and why, what was done, what was shown, and what the findings mean. Our findings will contribute to a set of recommendations to optimize the conduct and reporting of randomized controlled trials and SRs with meta-analysis.