As the number of scientific publications in the biomedical field increases exponentially
and as it has become apparent that appropriate synthesis of individual study results is
critical in clinical decision making, there is a need for improved reporting of the
published studies. One of the first and most comprehensive attempts towards improved
reporting was the publication, in 1996, of the core CONSORT guidelines (Consolidated
Standards for Reporting Trials) by the CONSORT group. The first CONSORT document was also
followed by the CONSORT extension guidelines covering trials with specific designs such as
cluster randomized and non-inferiority trials (http://www.consort-statement.org/aboutconsort). The third and latest version
of the core CONSORT document was published in the spring of 2010.A further initiative towards better reporting and a development from the CONSORT group is
the EQUATOR network (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) (http://www.equator-network.org/). As the EQUATOR group states:" The EQUATOR
Network is an 'umbrella' organization that brings together researchers, medical journal
editors, peer reviewers, developers of reporting guidelines, research funding bodies and
other collaborators with mutual interest in improving the quality of research publications
and of research itself."Currently the EQUATOR network site has a plethora of published guidelines and other
relevant publications to assist in research reporting all "interested" in a one stop shop
package. A reasonable question that would come to mind is the following: how is the EQUATOR
network initiative for improved reporting in healthcare can help dental research and
dentistry in general? The answer to this question is that dentistry is bound to benefit at
several levels.Accurate and transparent reporting facilitates correct indexing, easier retrieval,
assessment and utilization of the published reports by the investigators seeking to
evaluate the available evidence on the topic of interest. Although the guidelines in the
EQUATOR pertain mainly to reporting rather than design and quality assessment of health
related research, there are potential positive implications for an improved study design.
Prospective researchers planning with the end in mind may use the guidelines at the design
stage to make sure that all important aspects of the research project are being considered.
Therefore, a group of investigators about to design a randomized clinical trial or an
observational study may refer to the CONSORT or the STROBE guidelines respectively and use
them as checklists to make sure important design issues are considered and accounted for at
the initial stages of the project.The editorial process is a demanding and very responsible task as the editors must act as
the "gatekeepers" to the knowledge. It is important for the editors to be able to separate
"good" from "bad" research as this may have important consequences on clinical practice and
patient well-being. Healthcare authorities rely on published research for preparing
healthcare policies and guidelines, and the clinicians may base their decision making
process on those drafted guidelines. Therefore, it is easy to understand that accurate and
transparent reporting of what was actually done during the research study is vital in
assessing the worthiness of the research and whether it deserves to be seen by the public
eye. Editors may adopt pertinent guidelines from the EQUATOR initiative in order to promote
better reporting in the journals, and In fact, a large number of journals has already
adopted the CONSORT and other relevant guidelines.The peer reviewing process goes hand in hand with the editor's work, and may be greatly
enhanced as the reporting guidelines can be used as a reference checklist of what should be
included in the submitted manuscript. Adherence to good reporting by the authors improves
the whole peer reviewing process for the benefit of editorial boards, authors and patients.
Unfortunately, although a large number of journals have adopted guidelines such as the
CONSORT, adherence to those guidelines appears to have been suboptimal because it seems
that there is a lack of their enforcement by the editorial group to the authors. This is an
area of great concern to the EQUATOR network and monitoring improvement of adherence to the
guidelines is one of the key objectives of the group's five year plan. It is of interest to
note that as of July 2011, the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
has gone a step further toward better reporting by assuring, via an internal process and
before peer-reviewing commences, adherence of randomized clinical trials and systematic
reviews to the CONSORT and PRISMA guidelines, respectively. http://journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymod/authorinfo.The investigator seeking information to enhance his current or future research project or
who is interested in conducting a systematic review in order to get a more precise answer
to a question of clinical importance will also reap the benefits. Finally, the reader, who
is the end consumer of all the published research, may greatly benefit by reading reports
that clearly present what has been actually done during the conduct of the study. The
reader may be a clinician seeking treatment ideas or treatment changes that may better
serve his/her patients. The reader may be a student trying to further her knowledge on a
subject or a health authority committee striving to draft treatment guidelines and
healthcare policies. Clear and accurate reporting allows for better assessment and helps
the readers to place the available evidence in the correct context and hierarchy level.Have a look at the EQUATOR network site and see how the work of this group may help you
improve your work.
Authors: Meaghann S Weaver; Katherine E Heinze; Cynthia J Bell; Lori Wiener; Amy M Garee; Katherine P Kelly; Robert L Casey; Anne Watson; Pamela S Hinds Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Gila Neta; Russell E Glasgow; Christopher R Carpenter; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Borsika A Rabin; Maria E Fernandez; Ross C Brownson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 9.308