Literature DB >> 19900949

Responsible reporting of health research studies: transparent, complete, accurate and timely.

Douglas G Altman1, Iveta Simera.   

Abstract

Complete, accurate and transparent reporting is an integral part of responsible research conduct. However, many studies have shown that health research publications frequently lack crucial information. Reporting guidelines like the CONSORT Statement help to improve the quality of research reports. Unfortunately, their uptake by journals and authors is still limited and does not maximize their potential. The EQUATOR Network, a new international initiative, leads the effort to promote transparent reporting of research and the use of reporting guidelines. It provides online resources and training relating to the reporting of health research, and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of reporting guidelines (www.equator-network.org). Poor reporting practices can be decreased only through close collaboration of all parties involved in research and its publication; EQUATOR can facilitate the process.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19900949      PMCID: PMC2793689          DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkp410

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Antimicrob Chemother        ISSN: 0305-7453            Impact factor:   5.790


  15 in total

Review 1.  Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review.

Authors:  Amy C Plint; David Moher; Andra Morrison; Kenneth Schulz; Douglas G Altman; Catherine Hill; Isabelle Gaboury
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2006-09-04       Impact factor: 7.738

2.  Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Mar 26-Apr 1       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved?

Authors:  N Smidt; A W S Rutjes; D A W M van der Windt; R W J G Ostelo; P M Bossuyt; J B Reitsma; L M Bouter; H C W de Vet
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2006-09-12       Impact factor: 9.910

Review 4.  Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results.

Authors:  Sally Hopewell; Kirsty Loudon; Mike J Clarke; Andrew D Oxman; Kay Dickersin
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-01-21

5.  What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?

Authors:  Paul Glasziou; Emma Meats; Carl Heneghan; Sasha Shepperd
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-06-28

Review 6.  Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence.

Authors:  Iain Chalmers; Paul Glasziou
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  A systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials.

Authors:  Stephanie L Prady; Stewart J Richmond; Veronica M Morton; Hugh Macpherson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-02-13       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias.

Authors:  Kerry Dwan; Douglas G Altman; Juan A Arnaiz; Jill Bloom; An-Wen Chan; Eugenia Cronin; Evelyne Decullier; Philippa J Easterbrook; Erik Von Elm; Carrol Gamble; Davina Ghersi; John P A Ioannidis; John Simes; Paula R Williamson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-08-28       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Sally Hopewell; Mike Clarke; David Moher; Elizabeth Wager; Philippa Middleton; Douglas G Altman; Kenneth F Schulz
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 10.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2007-10-16       Impact factor: 11.069

View more
  10 in total

1.  LapTrain: multi-modality training curriculum for laparoscopic cholecystectomy-results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  K F Kowalewski; C R Garrow; T Proctor; A A Preukschas; M Friedrich; P C Müller; H G Kenngott; L Fischer; B P Müller-Stich; F Nickel
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 4.584

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

Authors:  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
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  What affects authors' and editors' use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews.

Authors:  Thomas Fuller; Mark Pearson; Jaime Peters; Rob Anderson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  William T Gattrell; Sally Hopewell; Kate Young; Paul Farrow; Richard White; Elizabeth Wager; Christopher C Winchester
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-02-21       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Effect of a high-fat diet and alcohol on cutaneous repair: A systematic review of murine experimental models.

Authors:  Daiane Figueiredo Rosa; Mariáurea Matias Sarandy; Rômulo Dias Novaes; Sérgio Luís Pinto da Matta; Reggiani Vilela Gonçalves
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Use of 3x2 tables with an intention to diagnose approach to assess clinical performance of diagnostic tests: meta-analytical evaluation of coronary CT angiography studies.

Authors:  Georg M Schuetz; Peter Schlattmann; Marc Dewey
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-10-24

7.  Evaluating the impact and use of Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Thomas Fuller; Mark Pearson; Jaime L Peters; Rob Anderson
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Ensuring young voices are heard in core outcome set development: international workshops with 70 children and young people.

Authors:  Frances C Sherratt; Heather Bagley; Simon R Stones; Jenny Preston; Nigel J Hall; Sarah L Gorst; Bridget Young
Journal:  Res Involv Engagem       Date:  2020-05-06

Review 9.  Errors in the implementation, analysis, and reporting of randomization within obesity and nutrition research: a guide to their avoidance.

Authors:  Colby J Vorland; Andrew W Brown; John A Dawson; Stephanie L Dickinson; Lilian Golzarri-Arroyo; Bridget A Hannon; Moonseong Heo; Steven B Heymsfield; Wasantha P Jayawardene; Chanaka N Kahathuduwa; Scott W Keith; J Michael Oakes; Carmen D Tekwe; Lehana Thabane; David B Allison
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 5.095

10.  A Handful of Details to Ensure the Experimental Reproducibility on the FORCED Running Wheel in Rodents: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Daniel Garrigos; Marta Martínez-Morga; Angel Toval; Yevheniy Kutsenko; Alberto Barreda; Bruno Ribeiro Do Couto; Fernando Navarro-Mateu; José Luis Ferran
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 5.555

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.