The EQUATOR Network: a global initiative to improve the quality of reporting research

Similar documents
Dissemination experiences from CONSORT and other reporting guidelines

The importance of good reporting of medical research. Doug Altman. Centre for Statistics in Medicine University of Oxford

Reporting guidelines

Avoiding common errors in research reporting:

CLINICAL RESEARCH WEEK

Improving reporting for observational studies: STROBE statement

EQUATOR Network: promises and results of reporting guidelines

Transparency and accuracy in reporting health research

CONSORT extension. CONSORT for Non-pharmacologic interventions. Isabelle Boutron

Madhukar Pai, MD, PhD Associate Professor Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics McGill University, Montreal, Canada

The influence of CONSORT on the quality of reports of RCTs: An updated review. Thanks to MRC (UK), and CIHR (Canada) for funding support

Garbage in - garbage out? Impact of poor reporting on the development of systematic reviews

PROTOCOL: Reporting Guidelines Systematic Review 1. Dr. David Moher

Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals

Methods in Research on Research. The Peer Review Process. Why Evidence Based Practices Are Needed?

Meeting the research information needs of patients and clinicians more effectively Iain Chalmers Editor, James Lind Library

What is a Special Interest Group (SIG)?

Translating research findings and evidence-based guidelines into clinical practice

The QUOROM Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of systematic reviews

The Cochrane Collaboration

Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study

How to get your work published. Tracy I. George and Szu-Hee Lee Co-Editors-in-Chief International Journal of Laboratory Hematology

Reducing waste in research

Title: Intention-to-treat and transparency of related practices in randomized, controlled trials of anti-infectives

From drawing board to the ward: getting clinicians to change their minds. Dr Cat Chatfield 6th September 2018

Peer review of a scientific manuscript. Hanan Hamamy

How to avoid common problems in research and manuscripts Dr. Bill Summerskill Senior executive editor, The Lancet

Statistical Analysis Plans

Webinar 3 Systematic Literature Review: What you Need to Know

From protocol to publication: ensuring quality in the reporting of continence research Workshop 20 Monday, August 23rd 2010, 14:00 17:00

Assessing the risk of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews

Publishing Your Study: Tips for Young Investigators. Learning Objectives 7/9/2013. Eric B. Bass, MD, MPH

Jon Brassey TRIP Database and Public Health Wales July 2012

Accepted refereed manuscript of:

IMPORTANCE OF AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING EXTERNAL VALIDITY. Russell E. Glasgow, PhD Lawrence W. Green, DrPH

The Cochrane-REWARD prize for reducing waste in research

Quality of meta-analyses and why they sometimes lead to different conclusions

Blinded by PRISMA: Are Systematic Reviewers Focusing on PRISMA and Ignoring Other Guidelines?

Report to the editors of the journal

CJSP: On Reaffirming a Canadian School Psychology

10 simple rules for developing the best experimental design in biology

PEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS TITLE (PROVISIONAL)

Principles of publishing

Timing Your Research Career & Publishing Addiction Medicine

Reporting and dealing with missing quality of life data in RCTs: has the picture changed in the last decade?

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

A critical appraisal of: Canadian guideline fysisk aktivitet using the AGREE II Instrument

Tips on Successful Writing and Getting Published Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc, FACC, FAHA Professor of Medicine Editor, JAMA Internal Medicine

Fang Hua 1,2*, Tanya Walsh 2, Anne-Marie Glenny 2 and Helen Worthington 2*

The SPIRIT Initiative: Defining standard protocol items

EFFECTIVE MEDICAL WRITING Michelle Biros, MS, MD Editor-in -Chief Academic Emergency Medicine

CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*

EVIDENCE AND RECOMMENDATION GRADING IN GUIDELINES. A short history. Cluzeau Senior Advisor NICE International. G-I-N, Lisbon 2 November 2009

Why published medical research may not be good for your health

Introduction to systematic reviews/metaanalysis

The Cochrane Library in East Asia: Background and Research to Inform Future Digital Strategies

PEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW. Veronika Williams University of Oxford, UK 07-Dec-2015

Scientific Council Fifty-first Session 21/11/2014

Title:Video-confidence: a qualitative exploration of videoconferencing for psychiatric emergencies

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Policy and Procedures on Evidence-Based Practice

Science cannot exist without writing

Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers interpretation: a randomized controlled trial

CONSULTANT PHYSICIAN v SANOFI

Discovery and validation of novel. Webinar IMI2 - Call 9 Joint influenza vaccine effectiveness studies

How effective is comprehensive sexuality education in preventing HIV?

CONSORT: missing missing data guidelines, the effects on HTA monograph reporting Yvonne Sylvestre

Systematic Reviews. Simon Gates 8 March 2007

Reporting randomised trials of social and psychological interventions: the CONSORT- SPI 2018 Extension

Meta-analysis of safety thoughts from CIOMS X

Alzheimer s Society 2014

Write a research proposal to rationalize the purpose of the research. (Consult PowerPoint slide show notes.)

Evidence-based Laboratory Medicine: Finding and Assessing the Evidence

CONSORT 2010 Statement Annals Internal Medicine, 24 March History of CONSORT. CONSORT-Statement. Ji-Qian Fang. Inadequate reporting damages RCT

Priorities for implementation research

Perspectives on Oropharyngeal Cancer: Scientific Overview, Clinical Expertise, and Personal Experience. February 13, 2019

This is a repository copy of The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE).

Stepping up to the challenge of falls at Basildon Hospital

Open Access in the Scientific Discourse: Achievements & Perspectives

Request for Proposals

baseline comparisons in RCTs

HRET HIIN Falls Virtual Event

Department of Health & Human Services

Results. NeuRA Treatments for internalised stigma December 2017

Checklist for Text and Opinion. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews

Put Your Best Figure Forward: Line Graphs and Scattergrams

PEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS VERSION 1 - REVIEW. Ball State University

Non-drug treatments and the waste in research

Editorial: An Author s Checklist for Measure Development and Validation Manuscripts

Workshop: Cochrane Rehabilitation 05th May Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health.

How to write a scientific article?

Manuscript ID BMJ R1 entitled "Nosocomial Transmission of Avian Influenza A (H7N9) Virus in China: An Epidemiological Investigation"

Cochrane Bone, Joint & Muscle Trauma Group How To Write A Protocol

New Clinical Solutions in Diabetes Care

Learning objectives. Examining the reliability of published research findings

IPDAS Deliverables, Impact, & Next Steps

What do letters to the editor publish about randomized controlled trials? A cross-sectional study

PEER REVIEW HISTORY ARTICLE DETAILS

Staff Flu Campaign Evaluation Tool

MOVEMBER FOUNDATION DANISH PROSTATE CANCER PROJECT REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS

Transcription:

The EQUATOR Network: a global initiative to improve the quality of reporting research

Author behaviour concerning publishing health research (1) A journal received a submission it had already rejected twice after peer-review: in the first submission the study was comparative in the second submission the study was cut to a onearm description in the third submission the study had become again comparative The authors made no allusion to the previous submissions and reviewer comments Ioannidis JPA, et al. EJCI 2010;40: 285-287 slide 2 of 20

Author behaviour concerning publishing health research (2) Omit submitting for publication a substantial amount of their research In a recent systematic review update of 79 studies examining research initially presented at scientific meetings and followed forward to publication Only 53% of the meeting presentations were subsequently published after nine years Scherer RW, et al. CDSR 2007;2:MR000005 slide 3 of 20

Author behaviour concerning publishing health research (3) 80 consecutive studies subsequently published in Evidence Based Medicine (Oct 05 for 12 months) 55 RCTs; 25 SRs Usable information about the intervention missing from 41/80 Glasziou P, et al. BMJ 2008;336;1472-4. slide 4 of 20

Author behaviour concerning publishing health research (4) 10 essential elements about intervention e.g., drug name, dose, route... Examined 262 reports of randomized trials from most prominent oncology journals Overall, only 11% of articles reported all 10 essential items Duff JM et al. JNCI 2010 102:702-705 slide 5 of 20

Author behaviour concerning publishing health research (5) Selecting specific outcomes to tell readers about the selection based on the results Dwan K, et al. PLoS ONE 2008;3: e3081 slide 6 of 20

Net effect This research investment should be protected from the avoidable waste of inadequately producing and reporting research Chalmers and Glasziou Thoughtful consideration of reporting trial-related procedures that could assist with turning best evidence to best Practice would be worthwhile Careful and consistent reporting would help to promote safe and effective clinical application of oncology therapeutics... Dancey Chalmer and Glasziou Lancet 2009;374:86-89; Dancey JNCI 2010; 102:670-671 slide 7 of 20

Reasons authors behave like this Don t know completely Publish of peril Needs to be studied Fanelli D, PLoS ONE 2010;5: e10271 slide 8 of 20

Changing author behaviour The EQUATOR Network www.equator-network.org An international initiative set up to improve reliability of health research publications slide 9 of 20

Seven major goals of the EQUATOR Network 1. Develop and maintain a comprehensive internet based resource centre providing up-to-date information, tools and other materials related to health research reporting 2. Assist in the development, dissemination and implementation of robust reporting guidelines 3. Actively promote the use of reporting guidelines and good research reporting practices through an education and training program 4. Conduct regular assessments of how journals implement and use reporting guidelines 5. Conduct regular audits of the reporting quality across the whole spectrum of health research literature 6. Set up a global network of local EQUATOR collaborating centres in order to facilitate the improvement of health research reporting on a worldwide scale 7. Develop a general strategy for translating the principles of responsible research reporting into practice Simera I, et al. BMC Medicine 2010;8:24 slide 10 of 20

Steps to support and practice accurate and transparent reporting of health research Find out about reporting requirements early when planning your research study When writing up your research, check the EQUATOR website for any new relevant reporting guidelines in order to help improve the quality of your manuscript Simera I, et al. BMC Medicine 2010;8:24 slide 11 of 20

EQUATOR resources slide 12 of 20

Reporting guidelines Checklist Flow diagram Explicit text to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology Moher D, et al. PLoS Med 2010;7(2): e1000217 slide 13 of 20

A surgical safety checklist The rate of death was 1.5% before the checklist was introduced and declined to 0.8% afterward (P = 0.003). Inpatient complications occurred in 11.0% of patients at baseline and in 7.0% after introduction of the checklist (P<0.001 Haynes AB, et al. NEJM 2009;360:491-499 slide 14 of 20

Differences in reporting of methodological items between CONSORT endorsing and non-endorsing journals in 2006 slide 15 of 20

EQUATOR resources slide 16 of 20

EQUATOR resources Developing a comprehensive educational program Webinar Crystal clear reporting of systematic reviews and EQUATOR Network http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvfyenon1jo&f eature=player_embedded Developing short courses Editors and peer reviewers Young research professionals and research students slide 17 of 20

What can you do to help improve the quality of reporting health research? Author Adhere to the relevant reporting guideline(s) when not reporting on certain items explain the reason why Reporting guidelines provide a minimum set of items other details specific to your particular study might be relevant for a clear and complete account of what was done and found. Institution Ensure your workplace: Implements a policy whereby research from the institution must use reporting guidelines insist upon populating a reporting guideline checklist for each journal submission Ask your institution leadership to set aside resources to develop courses on reporting research and peer review slide 18 of 20

GOOD REPORTING IS A MANDATORY COMPONENT OF GOOD SCIENCE, NOT AN OPTIONAL EXTRA Ziman J. Reliable Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, 1978 slide 19 of 20

Thank you! slide 20 of 20