Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: A Cross-sectional study

BMJ Open

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2016, Pages

  Gattrell, William T ^a,b   Hopewell, Sally ^c   Young, Kate ^a   Farrow, Paul ^a   White, Richard ^a,b   Wager, Elizabeth ^d,e   Winchester, Christopher C ^a,f  

^a OXFORD PHARMAGENESIS LTD   (United Kingdom)

^b OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d Sideview   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SPLIT   (Croatia)

^f DURHAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMED CENTRAL; CHECKLIST; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; FUNDING; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; PILOT STUDY; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESEARCH; STANDARDS;

CHECKLIST; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; HUMANS; MEDICAL WRITING; PILOT PROJECTS; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 84960433691     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010329     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (2): MR000005.
2. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:MR000033.
3. Altman DG, Simera I. Responsible reporting of health research studies: transparent, complete, accurate and timely. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65:1-3.
4. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, et al. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med 2010;8:24.
5. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332.
6. Hopewell S, Dutton S, Yu LM, et al. The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed. BMJ 2010;340:c723.
7. 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.
8. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 2005;365:1159-62.
9. Smyth RM, Jacoby A, Altman DG, et al. The natural history of conducting and reporting clinical trials: interviews with trialists. Trials 2015;16:16.
10. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 2014;383:267-76.
11. Scherer RW, Ugarte-Gil C, Schmucker C, et al. Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:803-10.
12. Norris R, Bowman A, Fagan JM, et al. International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) position statement: the role of the professional medical writer. Curr Med Res Opin 2007;23:1837-40.
13. Jacobs A, Wager E. European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:317-22.
14. Battisti WP, Wager E, Baltzer L, et al., International Society for Medical Publication Professionals. Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3. Ann Intern Med 2015;163:461-4.
15. Woolley KL, Gertel A, Hamilton CW, et al. Time to finger point or fix? An invitation to join ongoing efforts to promote ethical authorship and other good publication practices. Ann Pharmacother 2013;47:1084-7.
16. Nastasee SA. Acknowledgment of medical writers in medical journal articles: a comparison from the years 2000 and 2007. Curr Med Res Opin 2010;26:S6.
17. Woolley KL, Ely JA, Woolley MJ, et al. Declaration of medical writing assistance in international peer-reviewed publications. JAMA 2006;296:932-4.
18. Hopewell S, Collins GS, Boutron I, et al. Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study. BMJ 2014;349:g4145.
19. BioMed Central Advanced Search. 2015. http://www.biomedcentral. com/logon?url=%2Fmy (accessed 11 Dec. 2015).
20. Jacobs A. Adherence to the CONSORT guideline in papers written by professional medical writers. Write Stuff 2010;19:196-9.
21. Pildal J, Hróbjartsson A, Jørgensen KJ, et al. Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 2007;36:847-57.
22. Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2008;336:601-5.
23. Wager E, Woolley K, Adshead V, et al. Awareness and enforcement of guidelines for publishing industry-sponsored medical research among publication professionals: the Global Publication Survey. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004780.
24. Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Baron G, et al. The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors. BMC Med 2015;13:158.
25. Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports. 1995. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public-Web-Site/ICH-Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E3/E3-Guideline.pdf (accessed 11 Dec. 2015).
26. BioMed Central Editorial Policies. 2015. http://www.biomedcentral. com/about/editorialpolicies (accessed 11 Dec. 2015).
27. Lagnado M. Professional writing assistance: effects on biomedical publishing. Learn Publ 2003;16:21-7.
28. Pierie JP, Walvoort HC, Overbeke AJ. Readers' evaluation of effect of peer review and editing on quality of articles in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. Lancet 1996;348:1480-3.
29. Bailey M. Science editing and its effect on manuscript acceptance time. Am Med Writ Assoc J 2011;26:147-52.
30. Woolley K, Ely J, Woolley M, et al. Declaration of medical writing assistance in international, peer-reviewed publications and effect of pharmaceutical sponsorship. Presented at the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication; 16-18 September 2005. http://www.peerreviewcongress.org/abstracts.html#declaration (accessed 11 Dec. 2015).
31. Rawal B, Deane BR. Clinical trial transparency update: an assessment of the disclosure of results of company-sponsored trials associated with new medicines approved in Europe in 2012. Curr Med Res Opin 2015;31:1431-5.
32. Anderson ML, Chiswell K, Peterson ED, et al. Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.gov. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1031-9.
33. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86-9.
34. Woolley KL, Gertel A, Hamilton C, et al., Global Alliance of Publication Professionals (GAPP). Poor compliance with reporting research results-we know it's a problem⋯how do we fix it? Curr Med Res Opin 2012;28:1857-60.
35. DeBakey L, DeBakey S. Ghostwriters: not always what they appear. JAMA 1995;274:870-1.
36. Goldacre B. Medical ghostwriters who build a brand. The Guardian 2010 Sept 18. http://www.theguardian. com/commentisfree/2010/sep/18/bad-science-medical-ghostwriters (accessed 11 Dec. 2015).
37. Marchington JM, Burd GP. Author attitudes to professional medical writing support. Curr Med Res Opin 2014;30:2103-8.
38. Camby I, Delpire V, Rouxhet L, etal. Publication practices and standards: recommendations from GSK Vaccines' author survey. Trials 2014;15:446.