2011
DOI: 10.1590/s0102-311x2011001000001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Evidence published in the scientific literature is commonly used in public health to support policy decisions. A wide variety of stakeholders consults Cadernos de Saúde Pública (CSP) to assess and summarize research evidence, plan health programs, design new interventions, and identify risk factors for a particular health outcome. Thus, it is crucial that scientific articles are published transparently and accurately in order to allow evaluating the reliability of the research for future use. CSP receives more… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We add further recommendations regarding peer review (Box S4). These include encouraging editors to write editorials about reporting guidelines [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We add further recommendations regarding peer review (Box S4). These include encouraging editors to write editorials about reporting guidelines [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reporting quality is appraised using the relevant guidelines, such as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses . The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health Research Network (http://www.equator-network.org/) and the Research Reporting Guidelines and Initiatives (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/services/research_report_guide.html) are good websites to search reporting guidelines for both primary and secondary research.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over the next 20 years, over 200 guidelines for reporting various types of research appeared, with the aim of setting a baseline minimum standard of information needed. The minimum standard was called for to ensure transparent reporting, facilitate clinical judgment of potential biases in the findings, support replicability of studies, and provide data for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Cobo et al, 2011; Kac & Hirst, 2011; Simera, Altman, Moher, Schulz, & Hoey, 2008; Stevens et al, 2014). …”
Section: The Development Of and Argument For Reporting Guidelinesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet, despite common agreement that evidence is critical for a range of stakeholders and to advancing policy, practice, and further research, the rigor and transparency with which we report that evidence varies so widely that it may be a hindrance-preventing promising evidence from being put to use as part of the knowledge base. Unacknowledged biases, inability to replicate due to missing information, or lack of clarity around context “can be dangerously misleading to policy decisions” (Kac & Hirst, 2011, p.1872). Poor reporting and dissemination of information contributes to the gap between research production and implementation in clinical practice (Mullen, Bledsoe, & Bellamy, 2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%