Background: Compulsory submission of a checklist from the relevant reporting guideline is one of the most widespread journal requirements aiming to improve completeness of reporting. However, the current suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines observed in the literature may indicate that this journal policy is not having a significant effect.
Findings: We explored whether authors provided the appropriate CONSORT checklist extension for their study and whether there were inconsistencies between what authors claimed on the submitted checklist and what was actually reported in the published paper. We randomly selected 12 randomized trials from three journals that provide the originally submitted checklist and analyzed six core CONSORT items. Only one paper used the appropriate checklist extension and had no inconsistencies between what was claimed in the submitted checklist and what was reported in the published paper.
Conclusion: Journals should take further actions to take full advantage of the requirement for the submission of fulfilled CONSORT checklists, thus ensuring that these checklists reflect what is reported in the manuscript.
There is evidence that the use of some reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, is associated with improved completeness of reporting in health research. However, the current levels of adherence to reporting guidelines are suboptimal. Over the last few years, several actions aiming to improve compliance with reporting guidelines have been taken and proposed. We will conduct a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research that have been evaluated or suggested, in order to inform future interventions.
Objective To investigate interventions aiming to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.
Design Ongoing scoping review of interventions aiming to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. The review follows the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Since we want to map the literature and comprehensively summarize the existing evidence, we consider the scoping review methodology the most suitable approach. After searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, as well as Google Scholar, from January 1, 1996, to March 31, 2017, we identified 15 articles evaluating different actions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. The reference lists of these articles are still to be screened. Articles suggesting but not assessing interventions were collected but have not yet been analyzed. The interventions found so far were classified according different criteria, in relation to the target population (journal policies, authors, editors, or reviewers) or the research stage at which they are performed (design, conduct, reporting, or peer review). After completing the review, descriptive statistical analysis will be performed to summarize the effect of the evaluated interventions on adherence to reporting guidelines. Moreover, a comprehensive summary of the suggested interventions found will be presented.
Results Preliminary results show that the majority of the interventions found (11/15 [73%]) have been assessed in the last 6 years, showing that developing strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines is becoming a critical issue in health research. Most of the interventions (10/15 [67%]) target journal policies, including weak or strong endorsement of reporting guidelines, compulsory trial registration, or active implementation of reporting guidelines over the course of the editorial process. Others target authors (3/15 [20%]) or reviewers (2/15 [13%]). Few interventions (4/15 [27%]) were evaluated by a randomized trial, and none of these few interventions targeted journal policies. Although the effect of the interventions found varies greatly among studies, results of the review to date suggest that active implementation strategies of reporting adherence to guidelines over the course of the editorial process tend to improve completeness of reporting.
Conclusions Few interventions aiming to improve adherence to reporting guidelines have been assessed. Our preliminary results show that most editorial policies have been adopted without the previous best evidence. Further efforts should be taken to evaluate interventions by randomized trials. Moreover, journals should take action to encourage the use of reporting guidelines from early stages of research and also to actively implement guidelines in the editorial process.
Tens of billions of Euros are wasted each year on studies that are redundant, flawed in their design, never published or poorly reported. Turning around this situation was one of the main reasons why the Methods in Research on Research (MiRoR) pr oject was created. The MiRoR project is a joint doctoral training programme in the field of clinical research funded by Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions. I and other fourteen students, as well as a group of high-level senior researchers and partner institutions (like The BMJ, Cochrane, EQUATOR Network, or BioMed Central, among others), are joining forces to try to meet the ambitious goal of the project: to increase research value and to reduce waste. In my talk, I will first introduce the MiRoR project, the topics we are working on, the way we are collaborating with prominent researchers and our partner institutions, as well as the challenges we are facing. Second, I will give an overview of my PhD project, which is focused on investigating what actions can be taken to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. Reporting guidelines are sets of recommendations aiming to provide advice on how to report research methods and findings. They have been developed since early 1990s to help improving the completeness and transparency of published articles, which helps decision makers to judge the applicability of the research, and enhances reproducibility. There is evidence that the use of some RGs, such as CONSORT, is associated with improved standards of reporting. However, the current
Reporting Guidelines (RGs) have been developed since early 1990s to help improving the completeness and transparency of published articles, which helps decision makers to judge the applicability of the research, and enhances reproducibility. There is evidence that the use of some RGs, such as CONSORT, is associated with Sunday 9th July Monday 10th July Tuesday 11th July Wednesday 12th July Author Index Thursday 13th July ISCB38, Vigo-Spain. Abstracts - Poster Contributed Session 37 Monday 10th July - 11.00-12.30 improved standards of reporting. However, the current levels of adherence to RGs are poor, far from desired. For this reason, different actions aiming to improve RGs adherence have been taken over the last years. We have performed a scoping review of interventions aiming to improve RGs adherence. After developing a suitable search strategy, we got 891 hits, from which we selected 18 articles reflecting different actions that have been taken to improve RGs adherence. Most of them (78%, 14 of 18) about journal policies, including weak or strong endorsement of RGs, compulsory trial registration or active implementation strategies of RGs in the editorial process. Others target authors (17%, 3 of 18) and peer reviewers (5%, 1 de 18). In this presentation, we will show in detail the findings of this review and comprehensively summarize the results in terms of adherence to RGs of the interventions found. Furthermore, we will analyze other possible interventions that have been reflected in the literature but never performed. This review could send a message to funders, authors and editors about how the problem of adhering better to RGs has been tackled from different perspectives. Moreover, it could be a major first step towards developing future strategies to improve RGs adherence, which could have a decisive impact in informing the treatment and preventing the disease