Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: Overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews

Evidence-Based Mental Health

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 46-52

  Hutton, Brian ^a,b   Wolfe, Dianna ^a   Moher, David ^a,b   Shamseer, Larissa ^a,b  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS; NARRATIVE; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCIENTIST; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; LITERATURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC);

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85018417380     PISSN: 13620347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/eb-2017-102666     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:1341-5.
2. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet Lond Engl 2014;383:267-76.
3. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet Lond Engl 2014;383:257-66.
4. Goodman SN, Fanelli D, Ioannidis JPA. What does research reproducibility mean? Sci Transl Med 2016;8:341ps12.
5. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;11: MR000030.
6. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1002028.
7. Thornley B, Adams C. Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. BMJ 1998;317:1181-4.
8. Patel MX, Collins S, Hellier J, et al. The quality of reporting of phase II and III trials for new antipsychotics: a systematic review. Psychol Med 2015;45:467-79.
9. de Vries YA, Roest AM, Beijers L, et al. Bias in the reporting of harms in clinical trials of second-generation antidepressants for depression and anxiety: a meta-analysis. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol J Eur Coll Neuropsychopharmacol 2016;26:1752-9.
10. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, et al. Evidence b(i)ased medicine— selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003;326:1171-3.
11. Spineli LM, Pandis N, Salanti G. Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods 2015;6:175-87.
12. Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M, et al. Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:718-42.
13. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:834-40.
14. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:e1-37.
15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. PRISMA group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2008;6: e1000097.
16. 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.
17. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ 2014;348:g3804.
18. Cobo E, Cortés J, Ribera JM, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ 2011;343:d6783.
19. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman D, et al. 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.
20. Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, et al. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Med 2015;13:221.
21. Hopewell S, Boutron I, Altman DG, et al. Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med 2016;14:199.
22. Trelle S. Exploratory trials in mental health: anything to learn from other disciplines? Evid Based Ment Health 2017;20:21-4.
23. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2015;38:506-14.
24. 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.
25. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Jørgensen KJ, et al. Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols. BMJ 2008;337:a2299.
26. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004;291:2457-65.
27. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586.
28. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Pocock SJ, et al. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement. JAMA 2012;308:2594-604.
29. Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, et al. CONSORT Group. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2012;345:e5661.
30. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2016;2:64.
31. Vohra S, Shamseer L, Sampson M, et al. CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 statement. BMJ 2015;350:h1738.
32. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 2008;337:a2390.
33. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:781-8.
34. Lang TA, Altman DG. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the ‘Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature’ or the SAMPL Guidelines. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52:5-9.
35. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ 2010;340:c221.
36. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multipletreatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:80-97.
37. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354:1896-900.
38. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647.
39. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1.
40. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62: e1-34.
41. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of healthcare interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 2015;162:777-84.
42. Chaimani A, Caldwell DM, Li T, et al. Additional considerations are required when preparing a protocol for a systematic review with multiple interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;S0895-4356:30775-2.
43. Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA 2015;313:1657-65.
44. Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ 2016;352:i157.
45. Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, et al. PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med 2012;9: e1001333.
46. Committee on Strategies for Responsible Sharing of Clinical Trial Data, Board on Health Sciences Policy & Institute of Medicine. Sharing clinical trial data: maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. National Academies Press (US), 2015.
47. Lo B. Sharing clinical trial data: maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. JAMA 2015;313:793-4.
48. Alsheikh-Ali AA, Qureshi W, Al-Mallah MH, et al. Public availability of published research data in high-impact journals. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e24357.
49. McKiernan EC, Bourne PE Brown CT, et al. How open science helps researchers succeed. eLife 2016;5:pii: e16800.
50. West R. Data and statistical commands should be routinely disclosed in order to promote greater transparency and accountability in clinical and behavioral research. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;70:254-5.
51. Shamseer L, Roberts J. Disclosure of data and statistical commands should accompany completely reported studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;70:272-4.
52. Ioannidis JP. Anticipating consequences of sharing raw data and code and of awarding badges for sharing. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;70:258-60.