Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately

OBJECTIVES: Appropriate use of reporting guidelines of health research ensures that articles present readers with a consistent representation of study relevance, methodology, and results. This study evaluated the use of major reporting guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional analysis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Caulley, Lisa, Catalá-López, Ferrán, Whelan, Jonathan, Khoury, Michel, Ferraro, Jennifer, Cheng, Wei, Husereau, Don, Altman, Douglas G., Moher, David
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2020
País:España
Institución:Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII)
Repositorio:Repisalud
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:repisalud.isciii.es:20.500.12105/9966
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/9966
Access Level:acceso abierto
id ES_d3f6a1a0034ea8945fe83986dcafd3e2
oai_identifier_str oai:repisalud.isciii.es:20.500.12105/9966
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriatelyCaulley, LisaCatalá-López, FerránWhelan, JonathanKhoury, MichelFerraro, JenniferCheng, WeiHusereau, DonAltman, Douglas G.Moher, DavidOBJECTIVES: Appropriate use of reporting guidelines of health research ensures that articles present readers with a consistent representation of study relevance, methodology, and results. This study evaluated the use of major reporting guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional analysis of health research articles citing four major reporting guidelines indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (up to June 24, 2018). Two independent reviews were performed in a random sample of 200 articles, including clinical trials (N = 50), economic evaluations (N = 50), systematic reviews (N = 50), and animal research studies (N = 50). The use of reporting guidelines to guide the reporting of research studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of the reporting guidelines as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct the studies. RESULTS: Across all selected reporting guidelines, appropriate use of reporting guidelines was observed in only 39% (95% CI: 32-46%; 78/200) of articles. By contrast, inappropriate use was observed in 41% (95% CI: 34-48%; 82/200), and unclear/other use was observed in 20% (95% CI: 15-26%; 40/200). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately. Authors may require further education around appropriate use of the reporting guidelines in research reporting.Elsevier20202020-05-0820202020-01-0120202020-01-01review articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcAMhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aainfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/9966reponame:Repisaludinstname:Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII)Inglésengopen accesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacionalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:repisalud.isciii.es:20.500.12105/99662026-06-12T12:43:37Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately
title Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately
spellingShingle Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately
Caulley, Lisa
title_short Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately
title_full Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately
title_fullStr Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately
title_full_unstemmed Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately
title_sort Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Caulley, Lisa
Catalá-López, Ferrán
Whelan, Jonathan
Khoury, Michel
Ferraro, Jennifer
Cheng, Wei
Husereau, Don
Altman, Douglas G.
Moher, David
author Caulley, Lisa
author_facet Caulley, Lisa
Catalá-López, Ferrán
Whelan, Jonathan
Khoury, Michel
Ferraro, Jennifer
Cheng, Wei
Husereau, Don
Altman, Douglas G.
Moher, David
author_role author
author2 Catalá-López, Ferrán
Whelan, Jonathan
Khoury, Michel
Ferraro, Jennifer
Cheng, Wei
Husereau, Don
Altman, Douglas G.
Moher, David
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv
description OBJECTIVES: Appropriate use of reporting guidelines of health research ensures that articles present readers with a consistent representation of study relevance, methodology, and results. This study evaluated the use of major reporting guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional analysis of health research articles citing four major reporting guidelines indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (up to June 24, 2018). Two independent reviews were performed in a random sample of 200 articles, including clinical trials (N = 50), economic evaluations (N = 50), systematic reviews (N = 50), and animal research studies (N = 50). The use of reporting guidelines to guide the reporting of research studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of the reporting guidelines as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct the studies. RESULTS: Across all selected reporting guidelines, appropriate use of reporting guidelines was observed in only 39% (95% CI: 32-46%; 78/200) of articles. By contrast, inappropriate use was observed in 41% (95% CI: 34-48%; 82/200), and unclear/other use was observed in 20% (95% CI: 15-26%; 40/200). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately. Authors may require further education around appropriate use of the reporting guidelines in research reporting.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020
2020-05-08
2020
2020-01-01
2020
2020-01-01
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv review article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bc
AM
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_ab4af688f83e57aa
dc.type.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/9966
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/9966
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
eng
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.rights.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repisalud
instname:Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII)
instname_str Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII)
reponame_str Repisalud
collection Repisalud
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869420505466929152
score 15.811543

Similares en LA Referencia