A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network

Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Volumn 109, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 67-77

  Altman, Douglas G ^a   Simera, Iveta ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL RESEARCH REPORTING; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); GREAT BRITAIN; PUBLISHING; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; GREAT BRITAIN; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84958555115     PISSN: 01410768     EISSN: 17581095     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0141076815625599     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. D.G.Altman. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ1994; 308: 283–284.
2. I.SimeraD.G.Altman. Writing a research article that is “fit for purpose”: EQUATOR Network and reporting guidelines. Evidence-Based Med2009; 14: 132–134.
3. T.Sollmann. The crucial test of therapeutic evidence. JAMA1917; 69: 198–199.
4. R.Pearl. A statistical discussion of the relative efficacy of different methods of treating pneumonia. Arch Intern Med1919; 24: 398–403.
5. H.L.Dunn. Application of statistical methods in physiology. Physiol Rev1929; 9: 275–398.
6. M.Greenwood. What is wrong with the medical curriculum. Lancet1932; i: 1269–1270.
7. D.Mainland. The Treatment of Clinical and Laboratory Data, Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1938.
8. L.Hogben. Chance and Choice by Cardpack and Chessboard1950; Vol. 1, New York, NY: Chanticleer Press.
9. D.Mainland. Elementary Medical Statistics. The Principles of Quantitative Medicine, Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1952.
10. H.L.Dunn. What high-level wellness means. Can J Public Health1959; 50: 447–457.
11. S.SchorI.Karten. Statistical evaluation of medical journal manuscripts. JAMA1966; 195: 1123–1128.
12. S.NieuwenhuisB.U.ForstmannE.J.Wagenmakers. Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance. Nat Neurosci2011; 14: 1105–1107.
13. N.R.ParsonsC.L.PriceR.HiskensJ.AchtenM.L.Costa. An evaluation of the quality of statistical design and analysis of published medical research: results from a systematic survey of general orthopaedic journals. BMC Med Res Methodol2012; 12: 60–60.
14. R.J.PrescottI.Civil. Lies, damn lies and statistics: errors and omission in papers submitted to INJURY 2010–2012. Injury2013; 44: 6–11.
15. M.ClarkeI.Chalmers. Discussion sections in reports of controlled trials published in general medical journals: islands in search of continents?JAMA1998; 280: 280–282.
16. M.ClarkeS.Hopewell. Many reports of randomised trials still don’t begin or end with a systematic review of the relevant evidence. J Bahrain Med Soc2013; 24: 145–147.
17. P.GlasziouE.MeatsC.HeneghanS.Shepperd. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?BMJ2008; 336: 1472–1474.
18. D.Mainland. Chance and the blood count. Can Med Assoc J1934; 30: 656–658.
19. M.Daniels. Scientific appraisement of new drugs in tuberculosis. Am Rev Tuberc1950; 61: 751–756.
20. S.O.WaifeProblems of publication. In: (eds). The Clinical Evaluation of New Drugs, New York, NY: Hoeber-Harper, 1959, pp. 213–216.
21. D.Mainland. Some research terms for beginners: definitions, comments, and examples. I. Clin Pharmacol Ther1969; 10: 714–736.
22. A.R.Feinstein. Clinical biostatistics. XXV. A survey of the statistical procedures in general medical journals. Clin Pharmacol Ther1974; 15: 97–107.
23. R.Feynman. Cargo cult science. Eng Sci1974; 37: 10–13.
24. O.B.RossJr. Use of controls in medical research. JAMA1951; 145: 72–75.
25. M.G.SandiferR.M.DunhamK.Howard. The reporting and design of research on psychiatric drug treatment: a comparison of two years. Psychopharmacol Serv Cent Bull1961; 1: 6–10.
26. J.O.ColeS.RossL.Bouthilet. Recommendations for reporting studies of psychiatric drugs. Public Health Rep1957; 72: 638–645.
27. B.S.Glick. Inadequacies in the reporting of clinical drug research. Psychiatr Q1963; 37: 234–244.
28. R.DerSimonianL.J.CharetteB.McPeekF.Mosteller. Reporting on methods in clinical trials. N Engl J Med1982; 306: 1332–1337.
29. J.E.TysonJ.A.FurzanJ.S.ReischS.G.Mize. An evaluation of the quality of therapeutic studies in perinatal medicine. J Pediatr1983; 102: 10–13.
30. C.L.MeinertS.TonasciaK.Higgins. Content of reports on clinical trials: a critical review. Control Clin Trials1984; 5: 328–347.
31. A.LiberatiH.N.HimelT.C.Chalmers. A quality assessment of randomised controlled trials of primary treatment of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol1986; 4: 942–951.
32. S.J.PocockM.D.HughesR.J.Lee. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. NEJM1987; 317: 426–432.
33. P.Gøtzsche. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Control Clin Trials1989; 10: 31–56.
34. A.DechartresP.CharlesS.HopewellP.RavaudD.G.Altman. 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 Epidemiol2011; 64: 136–144.
35. P.JüniD.G.AltmanM.Egger. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ2001; 323: 42–46.
36. J.R.O’FallonS.D.DubeyD.S.SalsburgJ.H.EdmonsonA.SofferT.Colton. Should there be statistical guidelines for medical research papers?Biometrics1978; 34: 687–695.
37. M.Zelen. The reporting of clinical trials: counting is not easy. J Clin Oncol1989; 7: 827–828.
38. J.R.O’Fallon. Discussion of: Ellenberg JH. Biostatistical collaboration in medical research. Biometrics1990; 45: 24–26.
39. D.G.AltmanC.Doré. Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet1990; 335: 149–153.
40. A.Grant. Reporting controlled trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol1989; 96: 397–400.
41. B.P.SquiresT.J.Elmslie. Reports of randomized controlled trials: what editors want from authors and peer reviewers. CMAJ1990; 143: 381–382.
42. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature. A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ann Intern Med1987; 106: 598–604.
43. R.B.HaynesC.D.MulrowE.J.HuthD.G.AltmanM.J.Gardner. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med1990; 113: 69–76.
44. J.Hartley. Current findings from research on structured abstracts: an update. J Med Libr Assoc2014; 102: 146–148.
45. Asilomar Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Call for comments on a proposal to improve reporting of clinical trials in the biomedical literature. Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Ann Intern Med1994; 121: 894–895.
46. Standards of Reporting Trials Group. A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA1994; 272: 1926–1931.
47. Dickersin K and Chalmers F. Thomas C Chalmers (1917–1995): A Pioneer of Randomized Clinical Trials and Systematic Reviews. JLL Bulletin: Commentaries on the History of Treatment Evaluation. See http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/thomas-c-chalmers-1917-1995/, 2014 (last checked 7 January 2016)
48. D.Rennie. Reporting randomized controlled trials. An experiment and a call for responses from readers. JAMA1995; 273: 1054–1055.
49. C.BeggM.ChoS.EastwoodR.HortonD.MoherI.Olkin. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA1996; 276: 637–639.
50. D.MoherK.F.SchulzD.G.Altman. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet2001; 357: 1191–1194.
51. D.G.AltmanK.F.SchulzD.MoherM.EggerF.DavidoffD.Elbourne. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med2001; 134: 663–694.
52. D.MoherS.HopewellK.F.SchulzV.MontoriP.C.GøtzscheP.J.Devereaux. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ2010; 340: c869–c869.
53. K.F.SchulzD.G.AltmanD.Moher. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ2010; 340: c332–c332.
54. L.YelleD.BergsagelV.BascoT.BrownR.BushJ.Gillies. Combined modality therapy of Hodgkin’s disease: 10-year results of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group multicenter clinical trial. J Clin Oncol1991; 9: 1983–1993.
55. S.HopewellA.HirstG.S.CollinsS.MallettL.M.YuD.G.Altman. Reporting of participant flow diagrams in published reports of randomized trials. Trials2011; 12: 253–253.
56. M.K.CampbellG.PiaggioD.R.ElbourneD.G.Altman. for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ2012; 345: e5661–e5661.
57. G.PiaggioD.R.ElbourneS.J.PocockS.J.EvansD.G.Altman. for the CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA2012; 308: 2594–2604.
58. S.VohraL.ShamseerM.SampsonC.BukutuC.H.SchmidR.Tate. CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 Statement. BMJ2015; 350: h1738–h1738.
59. J.P.A.IoannidisS.J.W.EvansP.C.GøtzscheR.T.O’NeillD.G.AltmanK.F.Schulz. Improving the reporting of harms in randomized trials: expansion of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med2004; 141: 781–788.
60. S.HopewellM.ClarkeD.MoherE.WagerP.MiddletonD.G.Altman. CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet2008; 371: 281–283.
61. S.HopewellM.ClarkeD.MoherE.WagerP.MiddletonD.G.Altman. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med2008; 5: e20–e20.
62. D.MoherD.J.CookS.EastwoodI.OlkinD.RennieD.F.Stroup. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet1999; 354: 1896–1900.
63. D.F.StroupJ.A.BerlinS.C.MortonI.OlkinG.D.WilliamsonD.Rennie. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA2000; 283: 2008–2012.
64. P.M.BossuytJ.B.ReitsmaD.E.BrunsC.A.GatsonisP.P.GlasziouL.M.Irwig. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med2003; 138: W1–12.
65. J.P.VandenbrouckeE.von ElmD.G.AltmanP.C.GøtzscheC.D.MulrowS.J.Pocock. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med2007; 4: e297–e297.
66. A.LiberatiD.G.AltmanJ.TetzlaffC.MulrowP.C.GøtzscheJ.P.Ioannidis. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ2009; 339: b2700–b2700.
67. D.G.AltmanL.M.McShaneW.SauerbreiS.E.Taube. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration. BMC Med2012; 10: 51–51.
68. K.G.MoonsD.G.AltmanJ.B.ReitsmaJ.P.IoannidisP.MacaskillE.W.Steyerberg. Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med2015; 162: W1–73.
69. C.KilkennyW.J.BrowneI.C.CuthillM.EmersonD.G.Altman. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol2010; 8: e1000412–e1000412.
70. J.M.SargeantA.M.O’ConnorI.A.GardnerJ.S.DicksonM.E.Torrence. The REFLECT statement: reporting guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in livestock and food safety: explanation and elaboration. Zoonoses Public Health2010; 57: 105–136.
71. Jedlitschka A, Pfahl D. Reporting guidelines for controlled experiments in software engineering. IEEE Computer Society. 4th International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering (ISESE), Proceedings, 2005: 95--104
72. S.J.PocockT.J.CollierK.J.DandreoB.L.de StavolaM.B.GoldmanL.A.Kalish. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ2004; 329: 883–883.
73. A.C.PlintD.MoherA.MorrisonK.SchulzD.G.AltmanC.Hill. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust2006; 185: 263–267.
74. I.SimeraD.G.AltmanD.MoherK.F.SchulzJ.Hoey. Guidelines for reporting health research: the EQUATOR Network’s survey of guideline authors. PLoS Med2008; 5: e139–e139.
75. D.MoherL.WeeksM.OcampoD.SeelyM.SampsonD.G.Altman. Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol2011; 64: 718–742.
76. D.MoherK.F.SchulzI.SimeraD.G.Altman. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med2010; 7: e1000217–e1000217.
77. L.TurnerL.ShamseerD.G.AltmanK.F.SchulzD.Moher. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev2012; 1: 60–60.
78. D.A.KorevaarJ.WangW.A.van EnstM.M.LeeflangL.HooftN.Smidt. Reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: some improvements after 10 years of STARD. Radiology2015; 274: 781–789.
79. S.HopewellG.S.CollinsI.BoutronL.M.YuJ.CookM.Shanyinde. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ2014; 349: g4145–g4145.
80. A.StevensL.ShamseerE.WeinsteinF.YazdiL.TurnerJ.Thielman. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ2014; 348: g3804–g3804.
81. C.BarnesI.BoutronB.GiraudeauR.PorcherD.G.AltmanP.Ravaud. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Med2015; 13: 221–221.
82. S.E.MahadyT.SchlubL.BeroD.MoherD.ToveyJ.George. Side effects are incompletely reported among systematic reviews in gastroenterology. J Clin Epidemiol2015; 68: 144–153.