Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? – A systematic review of reviews: an update

Abstract

PurposeReporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.Materials and methodsEight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).ResultsAmong the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.ConclusionWe conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

“…However, the effect of the intervention on the primary outcome within subgroups will be presented using forest plots to visually examine whether it may differ according to some variables such as: (i) journals that actively implement the CONSORT Statement (defined as requiring authors to submit a completed CONSORT checklist alongside their manuscript) versus journals that are not actively implementing the CONSORT statement, (ii) sample size of included RCTs (n<100 vs n≥100) and (iii) impact factor Open access (<5, 5.1-10;>10) as there is evidence that higher impact factor and higher sample size are associated with higher adherence to reporting guidelines. 35 Subgroup analysis at the journal level will only be conducted when sufficient journals are in each group so that no results of individual journals are revealed. All analyses will be exploratory, with the aim of supporting new hypothesis generation, rather than being conclusive.…”

The Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) Statement: A checklist with explanation and elaboration guideline for reporting randomised trials that use an adaptive design

“…Specific CONSORT extensions addressing the reporting needs for particular trial designs, hypotheses, and interventions have been developed [5]. The use of reporting guidelines is associated with improved completeness in study reporting [6][7][8]; however, mechanisms to improve adherence to reporting guidelines are needed [9][10][11][12].…”

Computational models and neural nets: Fantastic models—Where to find them and how to identify them

“…As in the field of CVD risk scores standardisation of inputs and data transparency are becoming essential to allow comparison of different strategies for the purposes of quality appraisal for evidence‐based guidelines. The variety and quality of data set reporting, analytical and statistical approaches, provision of absolute as opposed to relative effect sizes and lack of specificity and sensitivity data at set points remain common problems . Such approaches are now standard for epidemiological cohorts (CONSORT statement) and diagnostic assays (STARD) .…”

“…35,36 Such approaches are now standard for epidemiological cohorts (CONSORT statement) and diagnostic assays (STARD). 35,36 Reporting standards have been introduced for single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) association data and genome wide association studies to provide greater clarity for journal referees and editors assessing these studies and for readers to understand them and conduct validation studies. The increasing popularity and complexity of mathematical models applied to CVD and other TA B L E 1 Suggested data transparency and quality assessment criteria for computational directed learning models (extended after Krittanawong et al 18 ) 1.…”