Completeness of Reporting Is Suboptimal in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Rehabilitation Journals, With Trials With Low Risk of Bias Displaying Better Reporting: A Meta-research Study

Innocenti, Tiziano; Giagio, Silvia; Salvioli, Stefano; Feller, Daniel; Minnucci, Silvia; Brindisino, Fabrizio; IJzelenberg, Wilhelmina; Ostelo, Raymond; Chiarotto, Alessandro

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2022.01.156

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, to improve the quality of scientific reporting, this guideline would need to be adopted and enforced broadly. Given the large number of guidelines already in existence, and the fact that relevant guidelines are not necessarily used or adhered to [ 1 , 15 – 18 ], it is unclear whether such an approach would improve the status quo .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, the transparency and quality of research reporting are often sub-standard. For example, despite widespread adoption of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, it is adhered to by only 65% of randomised controlled trials published in rehabilitation journals [ 1 ]. In line with this, 20–37% of rehabilitation trials do not adequately report how they randomised participants or calculated their sample sizes [ 2 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reporting guidelines are often specific to a given study design, and they typically do not address fundamental aspects of scientific reporting, such as those highlighted above. Moreover, they are not necessarily used or adhered to by authors [ 1 , 15 – 18 ]. While editorial advice encouraging improved reporting is well intentioned, it is also generally ignored by authors [ 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Encouraging responsible reporting practices in the Instructions to Authors of neuroscience and physiology journals: There is room to improve

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Journals can substantially influence the quality of research reports by including responsible reporting practices in their Instructions to Authors. We assessed the extent to which 100 journals in neuroscience and physiology required authors to report methods and results in a rigorous and transparent way. For each journal, Instructions to Authors and any referenced reporting guideline or checklist were downloaded from journal websites. Twenty-two questions were developed to assess how journal Instructions to Authors address fundamental aspects of rigor and transparency in five key reporting areas. Journal Instructions to Authors and all referenced external guidelines and checklists were audited against these 22 questions. Of the full sample of 100 Instructions to Authors, 34 did not reference any external reporting guideline or checklist. Reporting whether clinical trial protocols were pre-registered was required by 49 journals and encouraged by 7 others. Making data publicly available was encouraged by 64 journals; making (processing or statistical) code publicly available was encouraged by ∼30 of the journals. Other responsible reporting practices were mentioned by less than 20 of the journals. Journals can improve the quality of research reports by mandating, or at least encouraging, the responsible reporting practices highlighted here.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Encouraging responsible reporting practices in the Instructions to Authors of neuroscience and physiology journals: There is room to improve

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The work that is being reported must be carried out in an ethical and responsible manner, and must also comply with all relevant local, national and international legislation 1 . However, there is an overwhelming body of evidence indicating that the current quality of the reporting of biomedical research is suboptimal 2–4 . It is also well‐known that a substantial number of manuscripts are rejected by journals and subsequently never published due to significant flaws in methodological reporting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1 However, there is an overwhelming body of evidence indicating that the current quality of the reporting of biomedical research is suboptimal. [2][3][4] It is also well-known that a substantial number of manuscripts are rejected by journals and subsequently never published due to significant flaws in methodological reporting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting guidelines enhance the quality and impact of research in Dental Traumatology

Nagendrababu

Duncan

Abbott

et al. 2023

Dental Traumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reporting guidelines assist basic scientists, translational healthcare researchers and clinicians to publish manuscripts of the highest standard by improving the accuracy, transparency and completeness of the publications they submit to journals. This paper provides an overview of reporting guidelines relevant for the specialty of dental traumatology and discusses their application, significance and potential impact. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) suite of reporting guidelines includes a range of study designs that can be used within the broad field of Endodontics but they are also applicable to dental traumatology and other dental disciplines (Preferred Reporting Items for Case reports in Endodontics [PRICE] 2020, Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics [PRIRATE] 2020; Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontology [PRIASE] 2021; Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology [PRILE] 2021 and Preferred Reporting items for OBservational studies in Endodontics [PROBE] 2023). The PRIDE guidelines were developed by an extensive network of globally renowned academics, researchers and expert clinicians working within dentistry using an accepted and validated consensus methodology. The aim of the PRIDE guidelines is to improve the overall quality of manuscripts describing case reports, randomized trials, animal research, laboratory studies and observational studies. Although attention to reporting guidelines adds a degree of complexity when writing reports, such guidelines provide a template for authors to develop standardized manuscripts of the highest quality, which will allow colleagues, readers and the wider public to have confidence that their findings are valid and robust. They also provide evidence to editors that manuscripts submitted to journals comply with the highest global standards of reporting within their respective discipline. Endorsement of the PRIDE guidelines by editors will lead to improvements in the reporting quality of manuscripts submitted to their journals.

show abstract

Assessment of Rehabilitation Journal Requirements for the Use of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registration

Paul,

Elfar,

Peters

et al. 2024

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Completeness of Reporting Is Suboptimal in Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Rehabilitation Journals, With Trials With Low Risk of Bias Displaying Better Reporting: A Meta-research Study

Cited by 17 publications

References 32 publications

Encouraging responsible reporting practices in the Instructions to Authors of neuroscience and physiology journals: There is room to improve

Encouraging responsible reporting practices in the Instructions to Authors of neuroscience and physiology journals: There is room to improve

Reporting guidelines enhance the quality and impact of research in Dental Traumatology

Assessment of Rehabilitation Journal Requirements for the Use of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About