Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: Extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements

BMJ Simulation and Technology Enhanced Learning

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 51-60

  Cheng, Adam ^a   Kessler, David ^b   Mackinnon, Ralph ^c,d   Chang, Todd P ^e   Nadkarni, Vinay M ^f   Hunt, Elizabeth A ^g   Duval Arnould, Jordan ^g   Lin, Yiqun ^h   Cook, David A ^i,j   Pusic, Martin ^k   Hui, Joshua ^l   Moher, David ^m   Egger, Matthias ⁿ   Auerbach, Marc ^o  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^b Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^c ROYAL MANCHESTER CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d KAROLINSKA INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^g JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

ⁱ MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^j Mayo Clinic   (United States)

^k NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^m OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^o YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Health Care

Indexed keywords

EID: 85044027723     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20566697     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjstel-2016-000124     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, et al. Technology enhanced simulation for health professions education: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. JAMA 2011; 3306: 978-88.
2. Zendejas B, Brydges R, Wang AT, et al. Patient outcomes in simulation-based medical education: A systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 2013; 28: 1078-89.
3. Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B, et al. Linking simulation-based educational assessments and patient-related outcomes: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Acad Med 2015; 90: 246-56.
4. Cheng A, Grant V, Auerbach M. Using simulation to improve patient safety: Dawn of a new era. JAMA Pediatr 2015; 169: 419-20.
5. Cook DA. How much evidence does it take? A cumulative meta-Analysis of outcomes of simulation-based education. Med Educ 2014; 48: 750-60.
6. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, et al. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research: 2003-2009. Med Educ 2010; 44: 50-63.
7. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Cohen ER, et al. Translational educational research: A necessity for effective health-care improvement. Chest 2012; 142: 1097-103.
8. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, et al. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: A BEME systematic review. Med Teach 2005; 27: 10-28.
9. Cheng A, Lockey A, Bhanji F, et al. The use of high-fidelity manikins for advanced life support training-A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Resuscitation2015; 93: 142-9.
10. Cheng A, Lang TR, Starr SR, et al. Technology-enhanced simulation and pediatric education: A meta-Analysis. Pediatrics 2014; 133: E1313-23.
11. Cheng A, Eppich W, Grant V, et al. Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Med Educ 2014; 48: 657-66.
12. Ilgen JS, Sherbino J, Cook DA. Technology-enhanced simulation in emergency medicine: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2013; 20: 117-27.
13. Lorello GR, Cook DA, Johnson RL, et al. Simulation-based training in anaesthesiology: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. Br J Anaesth 2014; 112: 231-45.
14. Zendejas B, Brydges R, Hamstra SJ, et al. State of the evidence on simulation-based training for laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review. Ann Surg 2013; 257: 586-93.
15. Dilaveri CA, Szostek JH, Wang AT, et al. Simulation training for breast and pelvic physical examination: A systematic review and meta-Analysis. BJOG 2013; 120: 1171-82.
16. Cheng A, Auerbach M, Hunt EA, et al. Designing and conducting simulation-based research. Pediatrics 2014; 133: 1091-101.
17. LeBlanc VR, Manser T, Weinger MB, et al. The study of factors affecting human and systems performance in healthcare using simulation. Simul Healthc 2011; 6(Suppl): S24-9.
18. Raemer D, Anderson M, Cheng A, et al. Research regarding debriefing as part of the learning process. Simul Healthc 2011; 6(Suppl): S52-7.
19. Cook DA, Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of instructional design features in simulation-based education: Systematic review and meta-Analysis. Med Teach 2013; 35: E867-98.
20. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 2014; 383: 267-76.
21. Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Bordage G. A systematic review of titles and abstracts of experimental studies in medical education: Many informative elements missing. Med Educ 2007; 41: 1074-81.
22. Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Bordage G. Quality of reporting of experimental studies in medical education: A systematic review. Med Educ 2007; 41: 737-45.
23. Cook DA, Levinson AJ, Garside S. Method and reporting quality in health professions education research: A systematic review. Med Educ 2011; 45: 227-38.
24. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001; 323: 42-6.
25. Begg CB, Cho MK, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276: 637-9.
26. Begley CG, Ioannidis JP. Reproducibility in science: Improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circ Res 2015; 116: 116-26.
27. 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: 1191-4.
28. 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.
29. Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, et al. Opportunities and challenges for improving the quality of reporting clinical research: CONSORT and beyond. CMAJ 2004; 171: 349-50.
30. 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.
31. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007; 147: 573-7.
32. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al. STROBE Initiative, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2007; 4: E297.
33. 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.
34. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-9.
35. 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. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: W65-94.
36. Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research. Equator Network library for health research reporting. http://www.equator-network.org/library/(accessed 28 May 2015).
37. Golub RM, Fontanarosa PB. Researchers, readers and reporting guidelines: Writing between the lines. JAMA 2015; 313: 1625-6.
38. Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, CONSORT group. CONSORT statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2004; 328: 702-8.
39. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, et al, CONSORT Group. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA 2006; 295: 1152-60.
40. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al. Methods and processes of the CONSORT group: Example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: W60-6.
41. Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP, et al. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA)-An extension of the STROBE statement. Eur J Clin Invest 2009; 39: 247-66.
42. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010; 7: E1000217.
43. Cheng A, Hunt EA, Donoghue A, et al. Examining pediatric resuscitation education using simulation and scripted debriefing: A multicenter randomized trial. JAMA Pediatr 2013; 167: 528-36.
44. Cheng A, Brown LL, Duff JP, et al. Improving cardiopulmonary resuscitation with a CPR feedback device and refresher simulations (CPR CARES study): A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr 2015; 169: 137-44.
45. Cheng A, Overly F, Kessler D, et al. Perception of CPR quality: Influence of CPR feedback, just-in-Time CPR training and provider role. Resuscitation 2015; 87: 44-50.
46. Kessler DO, Arteaga G, Ching K, et al. Interns' success with clinical procedures in infants after simulation training. Pediatrics 2013; 131: E811-20.
47. Gerard JM, Kessler DO, Braun C, et al. Validation of global rating scale and checklist instruments for the infant lumbar puncture procedure. Simul Healthc 2013; 8: 148-54.
48. Kessler D, Pusic M, Chang TP, et al. Impact of Just-in-Time and Just-in-Place simulation on intern success with infant lumbar puncture. Pediatrics 2015; 135: E1237-1246.
49. Chang TP, Kessler D, McAninch B, et al. Script concordance testing: Assessing residents' clinical decision-making skills for infant lumbar puncture. Acad Med 2014; 89: 128-35.
50. Haubner LY, Barry JS, Johnston LC, et al. Neonatal intubation performance: Room for improvement in tertiary neonatal intensive care units. Resuscitation 2013; 84: 1359-64.
51. Common guidelines for education research and development. A Report from the Institute for Education Sciences, US Department of Education and the National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub-summ.jsp?ods-key=nsf13126 (accessed 10 Jan 2015).
52. Cobo E, Cortes 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.
53. Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Meta-Analysis of observational studies. BMJ 1998; 316: 140-4.
54. American Education Research Association, Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educ Res 2006; 35: 33-40.
55. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al., Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. BMJ 2003; 326: 41-4.
56. Cook DA, Brydges R, Zendejas B, et al. Technology-enhanced simulation to assess health professionals: A systematic review of validity evidence, research methods, and reporting quality. Acad Med 2013; 88: 872-83.
57. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19: 349-57.
58. Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, et al. Publication guidelines for improvement studies in health care: Evolution of the SQUIRE project. Ann Intern Med 2008; 149: 670-6.