Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: A scoping review protocol

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 11, 2017, Pages

  Blanco, David ^a   Kirkham, Jamie J ^b   Altman, Douglas G ^c   Moher, David ^d   Boutron, Isabelle ^e   Cobo, Erik ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE CATALUNYA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

Author keywords

adherence; reporting guidelines; scoping review

Indexed keywords

COCHRANE LIBRARY; DATA EXTRACTION; EDITOR; EMBASE; ETHICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; METHODOLOGY; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH; STANDARDS;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 85049387142     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017551     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. EQUATOR Network. Library for health research reporting, 2011. www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-healthresearch-reporting.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Bereza BG, Machado M, Einarson TR. Assessing the reporting and scientific quality of meta-Analyses of randomized controlled trials of treatments for anxiety disorders. Ann Pharmacother 2008;42:1402-9.
6. Froud R, Eldridge S, Diaz Ordaz K, et al. Quality of cluster randomized controlled trials in oral health: A systematic review of reports published between 2005 and 2009. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2012;40(Suppl 1):3-14.
7. Fung AE, Palanki R, Bakri SJ, et al. Applying the CONSORT and STROBE statements to evaluate the reporting quality of neovascular age-related macular degeneration studies. Ophthalmology 2009;116:286-96.
8. Rios LP, Odueyungbo A, Moitri MO, et al. Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93:3810-6.
9. Shea B, Bouter LM, Grimshaw JM, et al. Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. J Rheumatol 2006;33:9-15.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Péron J, You B, Gan HK, et al. Influence of statistician involvement on reporting of randomized clinical trials in medical oncology. Anticancer Drugs 2013;24:306-9.
13. Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, et al. Effect of editors implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 2012;344:e4178.
14. Shamseer L, Stevens A, Skidmore B, et al. Does journal endorsement of reporting guidelines influence the completeness of reporting of health research? A systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 2012;1:24.
15. Armstrong R, Hall BJ, Doyle J, et al. "Scoping the scope" of a cochrane review. http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org (accessed 22 Jan 2017).
16. Arksey H, OMalley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19-32.
17. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual 2015: Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. 2015 http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual-Methodology-for-JBIScoping-Reviews-2015-v2. pdf.
18. Reporting guidelines under development. The EQUATOR Network [Internet]. http://www.equator-network.org/library/reportingguidelines-under-development/(accessed 30 Mar 2017).