Are our publications failing the inspection?: A review of the publications in rectal cancer surgery between 2002 and 2012

Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

Volumn 57, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 983-992

  Pinzon, Maria C Mora ^a   Hayden, Dana M ^a   Ariel, Darlene ^a   Bartosiak, Kimberly A ^a   Chiodo, Michael V ^a   Kosmidis, Konstantine ^a   Evans, Ann ^a   Saclarides, Theodore J ^a  

^a LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

CONSORT; PRISMA; Quality; Rectal cancer; Review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SURGERY; CHECKLIST; COLORECTAL SURGERY; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RECTUM CANCER; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

BIBLIOMETRICS; HUMANS; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RECTAL NEOPLASMS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84904899661     PISSN: 00123706     EISSN: 15300358     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000169     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276: 637-639. (Pubitemid 26278070)
2. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357: 1191-1194. (Pubitemid 32378696)
3. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152: 726-732.
4. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340: c869.
5. 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: 263-267. (Pubitemid 44382877)
6. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev. 2012;1: 60.
7. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L; CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials). Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001;285: 1992-1995. (Pubitemid 32366952)
8. Wenner DM, Brody BA, Jarman AF, Kolman JM, Wray NP, Ashton CM. Do surgical trials meet the scientific standards for clinical trials? J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215: 722-730.
9. Balasubramanian SP, Wiener M, Alshameeri Z, Tiruvoipati R, Elbourne D, Reed MW. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Ann Surg. 2006;244: 663-667. (Pubitemid 44629937)
10. Sinha S, Sinha S, Ashby E, Jayaram R, Grocott MP. Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209: 565-571.e1.
11. Jacquier I, Boutron I, Moher D, Roy C, Ravaud P. The reporting of randomized clinical trials using a surgical intervention is in need of immediate improvement: a systematic review. Ann Surg. 2006;244: 677-683. (Pubitemid 44629939)
12. Biau DJ, Porcher R, Boutron I. The account for provider and center effects in multicenter interventional and surgical randomized controlled trials is in need of improvement: a review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61: 435-439. (Pubitemid 351446188)
13. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook DJ, Doig C. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg. 2005;241: 450-459. (Pubitemid 40299721)
14. Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, et al. The reporting quality of metaanalyses improves: a random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61: 770-775.
15. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement-Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses. Lancet. 1999;354: 1896-1900.
16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8: 336-341.
17. Padula RS, Pires RS, Alouche SR, Chiavegato LD, Lopes AD, Costa LO. Analysis of reporting of systematic reviews in physical therapy published in Portuguese. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2012;16: 381-388.
18. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, Pham B, Tugwell P. A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25: 116-129. (Pubitemid 34157787)
19. Willis BH, Quigley M. The assessment of the quality of reporting of meta-analyses in diagnostic research: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11: 163.
20. The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed November 20, 2013.
21. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273: 408-412.
22. Kanaan Z, Galandiuk S, Abby M, et al. The value of lesser-impact-factor surgical journals as a source of negative and inconclusive outcomes reporting. Ann Surg. 2011;253: 619-623.
23. Urbach DR, Baxter NN. Does it matter what a hospital is "high volume" for? Specificity of hospital volume-outcome associations for surgical procedures: analysis of administrative data. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13: 379-383.
24. National Institutes of Health. NIH Policy and Guidelines on the Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research. http://grants.nih. gov/grants/funding/women-min/guidelines-amended-10-2001.htm. Accessed November 20, 2013.