Literature DB >> 18599268

The Completeness of Reporting (CORE) index identifies important deficiencies in observational study conference abstracts.

Michelle E Kho1, Kevin W Eva2, Deborah J Cook3, Melissa C Brouwers4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to develop, test, and apply an index to assess the completeness of reporting in a cohort of observational studies of conference abstracts. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: Using rigorous methods, we reduced 245 items generated by literature review to 48 candidate items. In a random sample of 30 conference abstracts of rituximab for nonHodgkin lymphoma, we developed an item impact score using a survey of abstract stakeholders combined with the prevalence of each of the 48 items. We retained 14 independent items representing completeness of reporting, the CORE-14. Two raters determined the reliability of the instrument. We then applied the CORE-14 in another 78 studies to determine the prevalence of each feature.
RESULTS: Our survey response rate was 83.9% (47/56). Interrater reliability (95% CI) of the CORE-14 instrument was 0.56 (0.25, 0.77), which improved by averaging across scores provided by two raters (0.72 [0.49, 0.86]). Applying the CORE-14 in an additional set of 78 abstracts, six items occurred > or =85% and four items occurred < or =40% of the time.
CONCLUSION: Opportunities to improve conference abstract reporting exist. This scale could guide future conference abstract submissions and aid individuals considering conference abstract data to inform clinical practice, systematic reviews, guidelines, or policy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18599268     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.01.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  7 in total

1.  Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Lisa M McShane; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 8.775

2.  Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Douglas G Altman; Lisa M McShane; Willi Sauerbrei; Sheila E Taube
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2012-05-29       Impact factor: 11.069

3.  Writing abstracts and developing posters for national meetings.

Authors:  Gordon J Wood; R Sean Morrison
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2011-01-17       Impact factor: 2.947

Review 4.  Role of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in the Mental Health of Preschoolers, Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  María Rodriguez-Ayllon; Cristina Cadenas-Sánchez; Fernando Estévez-López; Nicolas E Muñoz; Jose Mora-Gonzalez; Jairo H Migueles; Pablo Molina-García; Hanna Henriksson; Alejandra Mena-Molina; Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno; Andrés Catena; Marie Löf; Kirk I Erickson; David R Lubans; Francisco B Ortega; Irene Esteban-Cornejo
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 5.  Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth.

Authors:  Mark S Tremblay; Allana G LeBlanc; Michelle E Kho; Travis J Saunders; Richard Larouche; Rachel C Colley; Gary Goldfield; Sarah Connor Gorber
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 6.457

6.  Mechanisms linking physical activity with psychiatric symptoms across the lifespan: a protocol for a systematic review.

Authors:  Phuong Thuy Nguyen Ho; Tram Ha Pham Bich; Thao Tong; Wichor M Bramer; Amy Hofman; David Revalds Lubans; Meike W Vernooij; María Rodriguez-Ayllon
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Completeness of reporting of case reports in high-impact medical journals.

Authors:  José A Calvache; Maira Vera-Montoya; Darío Ordoñez; Adrian V Hernandez; Douglas Altman; David Moher
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2020-03-14       Impact factor: 4.686

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.