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

BMJ Open

Volumn 2, Issue 6, 2012, Pages

  Fuller, Thomas ^a   Pearson, Mark ^a   Peters, Jaime L ^a   Anderson, Rob ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; TRANSPARENT REPORTING OF EVALUATION WITH NONRANDOMISED DESIGN;

EID: 84873158517     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002073     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Altman DG, Simera I. Responsible reporting of health research studies: transparent, complete, accurate and timely. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65: 1-3.
2. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al. Evaluating nonrandomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003;7: 1-173.
3. Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M, et al. Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64: 718-42.
4. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials - The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996;276: 637-9. (Pubitemid 26278070)
5. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N, et al. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health 2004;94: 361-6. (Pubitemid 38269486)
6. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007;335: 806-8. (Pubitemid 350057266)
7. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy. Clin Chem 2003;49: 1-6. (Pubitemid 36078546)
8. MacPherson H, Altman DG, Hammerschlag R, et al. Revised standards for reporting interventions in clinical trials of acupuncture (STRICTA): extending the CONSORT statement. J Altern Complement Med 2010;16:ST1-14.
9. Vandenbroucke JP. STREGA, STROBE, STARD, SQUIRE, MOOSE, PRISMA, GNOSIS, TREND, ORION, COREQ, QUOROM, REMARK*CONSORT: for whom does the guideline toll? J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62: 594-6.
10. O'Connor A. Reporting guidelines for primary research: Ssaying what you did. Prev Vet Med 2010;97: 144-9.
11. Eccles M, Foy R, Sales A, et al. Implementation Science six years on - our evolving scope and common reasons for rejection without review. Implement Sci 2012;7:71.
12. Simera I, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. Guidelines for reporting health research: the EQUATOR Network's Survey of Guideline Authors. PLoS Med 2008;5:e139.
13. Dechartres A, Charles P, Hopewell S, et al. Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64: 136-44.
14. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36: 666-76. (Pubitemid 47244573)
15. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995;16: 62-73.
16. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999;282: 1054-60. (Pubitemid 29436453)
17. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323: 42-6.
18. Prady SL, Richmond SJ, Morton VM, et al. A Systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials. PLoS One 2008;3:e1577.
19. Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA, et al. The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology 2006;67: 792-7. (Pubitemid 44394191)
20. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001;285: 1992-5. (Pubitemid 32366952)
21. CONSORT Group. CONSORT Statement Website. http://www.consort-statement. org/about-consort/consort-endorsement/ (accessed 1 Aug 2012).
22. Altman DG. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors. BMJ 2005;330: 1056-7. (Pubitemid 40646557)
23. Hopewell S, Altman D, Moher D, et al. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'. Trials 2008;9: 20-6.
24. Li X-Q, Tao K-m, Zhou Q-h, et al. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high-impact medical journals in China: A survey of instructions for authors and published papers. PLoS One 2012;7: e30683.
25. Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e35621.
26. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006;185: 263-7. (Pubitemid 44382877)
27. Turner L, Moher D, Shamseer L, et al. The influence of CONSORT on the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials: an updated review. Trials 2011;12:(Suppl 1);A47.
28. Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Klesges LM, et al. Trend: An important step, but not enough. Am J Public Health 2004;94:1474.
29. Kirkwood B. Making public health interventions more evidence based - TREND statement for non-randomised designs will make a difference. BMJ 2004;328: 966-7.
30. Armstrong R, Waters E, Moore L, et al. Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT. J Public Health 2008;30: 103-9.
31. Pearson M, Peters J. Outcome reporting bias in evaluations of public health interventions: evidence of impact and the potential role of a study register. J Epidemiol Community Health 2012; 66: 286-9.
32. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, et al. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004;82: 581-629. (Pubitemid 40143100)
33. Robert G, Greenhalgh T, MacFarlane F, et al. Adopting and assimilating new non-pharmaceutical technologies into health care: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2010;15: 243-50.
34. Kulkarni A, Aziz B, Shams I, et al. Comparisons of citations in web of science, scopus, and google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA 2009;302: 1092-6.
35. Li J, Burnham JF, Lemley T, et al. Citation analysis: comparison of Web of Science®, Scopus™, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar. J Electron Resources Med Libr 2010;7: 196-217.
36. Spring M. Applying the principles of EBM to public health - searching for public health evidence - the experience at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Helsinki, Finland: European Association for Health Informatics and Libraries, 2008.
37. Fraser C, Murray A, Burr J. Identifying observational studies of surgical interventions in MEDLINE and EMBASE. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:41.
38. Furlan AD, Irvin E, Bombardier C. Limited search strategies were effective in finding relevant nonrandomized studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59: 1303-11. (Pubitemid 44708607)
39. Egan M, MacLean A, Sweeting H, et al. Comparing the effectiveness of using generic and specific search terms in electronic databases to identify health outcomes for a systematic review: a prospective comparative study of literature search methods. BMJ Open 2012;2:e001043.
40. Lachin JM. Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1981;2: 93-113. (Pubitemid 11006595)
41. Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, et al. Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17(Suppl 1):i3-9.
42. Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, et al. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2004;1: 176-84.
43. Jackson R, Ameratunga S, Broad J, et al. The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures. Evid Based Med 2006;11: 35-8.
44. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical-epidemiology/ oxford.htm(accessed 23 May 2012).
45. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Methods for development of NICE public health guidance. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2009.
46. Kunath F, Grobe HR, Rucker G, et al. Do journals publishing in the field of urology endorse reporting guidelines? A survey of author instructions. Urol Int 2012;88: 54-9.
47. Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, et al. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care 2003; 15: 261-6. (Pubitemid 36675722)
48. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3: 77-101.
49. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19: 349-57. (Pubitemid 350186969)