Marc Dewey1, Deborah Levine2,3, Patrick M Bossuyt4, Herbert Y Kressel2,3. 1. Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität and Freie Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. marc.dewey@charite.de. 2. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, USA. 3. Harvard Medical School and Radiology, Boston, USA. 4. Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the author-perceived impact on the final manuscript and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers. METHODS: This survey was conducted among all corresponding authors of original research submissions to Radiology. Separately, we surveyed active Radiology reviewers. Results were analysed using logistic multivariate regression. RESULTS: Overall, 60% of authors (831/1391) completed the survey. Only 15% (120/821) had used the guideline and checklist when designing the study, significantly more so for PRISMA (55%, 16/29) compared with STARD and STROBE users (17%, 52/310; p < 0.001 and 10%, 46/443; p < 0.001). For 23% of the surveyed manuscripts (189/821), authors used the guidelines when writing the manuscript; these authors more often reported an impact on the final manuscript (i.e. changes in the content, 57%, 107/189) compared to those who used the guideline when submitting the manuscript (35%, 95/272; p < 0.001; OR 0.433, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.288-0.648, p < 0.001) or when the checklist was requested by the editorial office (17%, 41/240; p < 0.001; OR 0.156, CI 0.097-0.247, p < 0.001). The perceived value of the reporting guideline was rated significantly higher the earlier the authors used the guideline in the research process (p < 0.001). The checklist was used by 77% of reviewers (200/259) some or all of the time; 60% (119/199) said it affected their reviews. CONCLUSION: Reporting guidelines had more author-perceived impact on the final manuscript and higher perceived value the earlier they were used, suggesting that there is a need for enhanced education on the use of these guidelines. KEY POINTS: • Only 15% of authors had used the respective reporting guideline and checklist when designing the study. • Almost 4 out of 5 Radiology authors and half of reviewers judged the guideline checklists to be useful or very useful. • Reporting guidelines had more author-perceived impact on manuscripts, i.e. changes that were made in the final manuscript, the earlier authors used them in the research process.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the author-perceived impact on the final manuscript and perceived value of journal reporting guidelines among Radiology authors and reviewers. METHODS: This survey was conducted among all corresponding authors of original research submissions to Radiology. Separately, we surveyed active Radiology reviewers. Results were analysed using logistic multivariate regression. RESULTS: Overall, 60% of authors (831/1391) completed the survey. Only 15% (120/821) had used the guideline and checklist when designing the study, significantly more so for PRISMA (55%, 16/29) compared with STARD and STROBE users (17%, 52/310; p < 0.001 and 10%, 46/443; p < 0.001). For 23% of the surveyed manuscripts (189/821), authors used the guidelines when writing the manuscript; these authors more often reported an impact on the final manuscript (i.e. changes in the content, 57%, 107/189) compared to those who used the guideline when submitting the manuscript (35%, 95/272; p < 0.001; OR 0.433, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.288-0.648, p < 0.001) or when the checklist was requested by the editorial office (17%, 41/240; p < 0.001; OR 0.156, CI 0.097-0.247, p < 0.001). The perceived value of the reporting guideline was rated significantly higher the earlier the authors used the guideline in the research process (p < 0.001). The checklist was used by 77% of reviewers (200/259) some or all of the time; 60% (119/199) said it affected their reviews. CONCLUSION: Reporting guidelines had more author-perceived impact on the final manuscript and higher perceived value the earlier they were used, suggesting that there is a need for enhanced education on the use of these guidelines. KEY POINTS: • Only 15% of authors had used the respective reporting guideline and checklist when designing the study. • Almost 4 out of 5 Radiology authors and half of reviewers judged the guideline checklists to be useful or very useful. • Reporting guidelines had more author-perceived impact on manuscripts, i.e. changes that were made in the final manuscript, the earlier authors used them in the research process.
Keywords:
Clinical trial; Diagnostic imaging; Information dissemination; Randomised controlled trial; Surveys and questionnaires
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
Authors: David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-03-23
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-21
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Cobo; J Cortés; J M Ribera; F Cardellach; A Selva-O'Callaghan; B Kostov; L García; L Cirugeda; D G Altman; J A González; J A Sànchez; F Miras; A Urrutia; V Fonollosa; C Rey-Joly; M Vilardell Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-11-22
Authors: Kaiping Zhang; Yanfang Ma; Qianling Shi; Jianfei Shen; Jinlin Wu; Xianzhuo Zhang; Panpan Jiao; Grace S Li; Xueqin Tang; René Horsleben Petersen; Calvin S H Ng; Alfonso Fiorelli; Nuria M Novoa; Benedetta Bedetti; Giovanni Battista Levi Sandri; Steven Hochwald; Toni Lerut; Alan D L Sihoe; Leandro Cardoso Barchi; Sebastien Gilbert; Ryuichi Waseda; Alper Toker; Diego Gonzalez-Rivas; Robert Fruscio; Marco Scarci; Fabio Davoli; Guillaume Piessen; Bin Qiu; Stephen D Wang; Yaolong Chen; Shugeng Gao Journal: Gland Surg Date: 2021-07
Authors: Dipak Kotecha; Folkert W Asselbergs; Stephan Achenbach; Stefan D Anker; Dan Atar; Colin Baigent; Amitava Banerjee; Birgit Beger; Gunnar Brobert; Barbara Casadei; Cinzia Ceccarelli; Martin R Cowie; Filippo Crea; Maureen Cronin; Spiros Denaxas; Andrea Derix; Donna Fitzsimons; Martin Fredriksson; Chris P Gale; Georgios V Gkoutos; Wim Goettsch; Harry Hemingway; Martin Ingvar; Adrian Jonas; Robert Kazmierski; Susanne Løgstrup; R Thomas Lumbers; Thomas F Lüscher; Paul McGreavy; Ileana L Piña; Lothar Roessig; Carl Steinbeisser; Mats Sundgren; Benoît Tyl; Ghislaine van Thiel; Kees van Bochove; Panos E Vardas; Tiago Villanueva; Marilena Vrana; Wim Weber; Franz Weidinger; Stephan Windecker; Angela Wood; Diederick E Grobbee Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 35.855
Authors: Olivier Q Groot; Paul T Ogink; Amanda Lans; Peter K Twining; Neal D Kapoor; William DiGiovanni; Bas J J Bindels; Michiel E R Bongers; Jacobien H F Oosterhoff; Aditya V Karhade; F C Oner; Jorrit-Jan Verlaan; Joseph H Schwab Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 3.102