Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: A cross-sectional diagnostic study

BMC Medicine

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2019, Pages

  Chauvin, Anthony ^a,b,c   Ravaud, Philippe ^a,b   Moher, David ^d   Schriger, David ^e   Hopewell, Sally ^f   Shanahan, Daniel ^g   Alam, Sabina ^h   Baron, Gabriel ^a,b   Regnaux, Jean Philippe ^a,b   Crequit, Perrine ^a,b   Martinez, Valeria ⁱ   Riveros, Carolina ^a,b   Le Cleach, Laurence ^j   Recchioni, Alessandro ^k   Altman, Douglas G ^f   Boutron, Isabelle ^a,b  

^a INSERM   (France)

^b HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

^c HÔPITAL LARIBOISIÈRE   (France)

^d OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^g Editorial Methods Department   (United Kingdom)

^h Taylor and Francis   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ RAYMOND POINCARÉ HOSPITAL   (France)

^j Centre d'Investigation Clinique   (France)

^k BioMed Central   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

CONSORT statement; Peer reviewers; Randomized controlled trials; Reporting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CAREER; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; EMERGENCY MEDICINE; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARALLEL DESIGN; PEER REVIEW; STANDARD; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 85075320743     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17417015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1436-0     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272(2):96-7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520020022005.
2. Rennie D. Editorial peer review in biomedical publication: the first international congress. JAMA. 1990;263(10):1317. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03440100011001.
3. Ghimire S, Kyung E, Kang W, et al. Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals. Trials. 2012;13(1):77. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-13-77.
4. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, et al. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058-64. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.651.
5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g4145.
6. Bohannon J. Who's afraid of peer review? Science. 2013;342(6154):60-5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
7. Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? J R Soc Med. 2008;101(10):507-14. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062.
8. Walbot V. Are we training pit bulls to review our manuscripts? J Biol. 2009;8(3):24. https://doi.org/10.1186/jbiol125.
9. 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(1):158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0395-3.
10. Mathieu S, Chan A-W, Ravaud P. Use of trial register information during the peer review process. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e59910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059910.
11. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5527.
12. Chauvin A, Moher D, Altman D, et al. A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e017462. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017462.
13. 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(1):221. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y.
14. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group*. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(8):657. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00011.
15. Goldacre B, Drysdale H, Dale A, et al. COMPare: a prospective cohort study correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials in real time. Trials. 2019;20(1):118. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3173-2.
16. COBPeer training module. https://clinicalepidemio.fr/COBPeer_Tool_V2_final. Accessed 24 Sept 2019.
17. COBPeer module. http://clinicalepidemio.fr/COBPeer. Accessed 24 Sept 2019.
18. O'Brien, R.G., Muller, K.E. Applied analysis of variance in behavioral science Marcel Dekker, New York (1993) Chapter 8 pp. 297-344.
19. Collett D. Modelling Binary Data, texts in statistical science 2nd ed. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 1999. pp. 24.
20. Simel DL, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Likelihood ratios with confidence: sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44(8):763-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(91)90128-V.
21. epiR: tools for the analysis of epidemiological data. 2018. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=epiR. Accessed 1 Dec 2018.