State of reporting of primary biomedical research: A scoping review protocol

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2017, Pages

  Li, Guowei ^a,b,c   Mbuagbaw, Lawrence ^a,b   Samaan, Zainab ^a,b   Jin, Yanling ^a   Nwosu, Ikunna ^a   Levine, Mitchell A H ^a,b,c   Adachi, Jonathan D ^a,b   Thabane, Lehana ^a,b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c CENTRE FOR EVALUATION OF MEDICINES   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CINAHL; EMBASE; ETHICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REGISTRATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WEB OF SCIENCE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; RESEARCH; SELECTION BIAS; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATA COLLECTION; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RESEARCH REPORT; SELECTION BIAS;

EID: 85034605291     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014749     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Glass GV. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research 1. Educ Res 1976;5:3-8.
2. Dickersin K, Chalmers I. Recognizing, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: from Francis Bacon to the WHO. J R Soc Med 2011;104:532-8.
3. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86-9.
4. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 2014;383:267-76.
5. 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.
6. Simera I, Altman DG. Writing a research article that is "fit for purpose": EQUATOR Network and reporting guidelines. Evid Based Med 2009;14:132-4.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, et al. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology 2013;269(2):413-26.
10. Smith BA, Lee HJ, Lee JH, et al. Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the nursing literature: application of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT). Nurs Outlook 2008;56:31-37. e33.
11. Samaan Z, Mbuagbaw L, Kosa D, et al. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. J Multidiscip Healthc 2013;6:169-88.
12. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, 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.
13. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, , et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias-an updated review. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e66844.
14. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Askie L. Reporting of trials presented in conference abstracts needs to be improved. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:681-4.
15. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA 1999;281: 1110-11.
16. Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med 2014;11: e1001666.
17. 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.
18. Chan AW, Krleža-Jerić K, Schmid I, et al. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 2004;171:735-40.
19. Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, et al. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin". Radiology 2013;267:581-8.
20. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2008;5:e20.
21. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015;13:141-6.
22. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016;16:15.
23. Brien SE, Lorenzetti DL, Lewis S, et al. Overview of a formal scoping review on health system report cards. Implement Sci 2010;5:2.
24. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.
25. 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.
26. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37:360-3.
27. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
28. Pieper D, Buechter RB, Li L, et al. Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:574-83.
29. Mhaskar R, Djulbegovic B, Magazin A, et al. Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:602-9.
30. Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Guyatt GH, et al. An observational study of orthopaedic abstracts and subsequent full-text publications. J Bone Joint Surg Ame 2002;84-A(4):615-21.