EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research

Altman, Douglas G.; Simera, Iveta; Hoey, John; Moher, David; Schulz, K F

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60505-x

Cited by 236 publications

(210 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…349 To help editors, peer-reviewers and authors to ensure transparent and complete reporting of health research, the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network has been developed. [350][351][352] Further empirical evidence is required to indicate the impact of reporting guidelines on reporting bias.…”

Section: Changes In Publication Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases

Song

Parekh²,

Hooper³

et al. 2010

Health Technol Assess

799

682

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to obtain copies of this and other HTA programme reports An electronic version of this title, in Adobe Acrobat format, is available for downloading free of charge for personal use from the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk). A fully searchable DVD is also available (see below).Printed copies of HTA journal series issues cost £20 each (post and packing free in the UK) to both public and private sector purchasers from our despatch agents.Non-UK purchasers will have to pay a small fee for post and packing. For European countries the cost is £2 per issue and for the rest of the world £3 per issue. How to order:-fax (with credit card details) -post (with credit card details or cheque) -phone during office hours (credit card only).Additionally the HTA website allows you to either print out your order or download a blank order form. Contact details are as follows:Synergie UK (HTA Department) Digital House, The Loddon Centre Wade Road Basingstoke Hants RG24 8QW Email: orders@hta.ac.uk Tel: 0845 812 4000 -ask for 'HTA Payment Services' (out-of-hours answer-phone service) Fax: 0845 812 4001 -put 'HTA Order' on the fax header Payment methods Paying by chequeIf you pay by cheque, the cheque must be in pounds sterling, made payable to University of Southampton and drawn on a bank with a UK address. Paying by credit cardYou can order using your credit card by phone, fax or post. SubscriptionsNHS libraries can subscribe free of charge. Public libraries can subscribe at a reduced cost of £100 for each volume (normally comprising 40-50 titles). The commercial subscription rate is £400 per volume (addresses within the UK) and £600 per volume (addresses outside the UK). Please see our website for details. Subscriptions can be purchased only for the current or forthcoming volume. How do I get a copy of HTA on DVD?Please use the form on the HTA website (www.hta.ac.uk/htacd/index.shtml). HTA on DVD is currently free of charge worldwide.The website also provides information about the HTA programme and lists the membership of the various committees. HTA NIHR Health Technology Assessment programmeT he Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was set up in 1993. It produces high-quality research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS. 'Health technologies' are broadly defined as all interventions used to promote health, prevent and treat disease, and improve rehabilitation and long-term care. The research findings from the HTA programme directly influence decision-making bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the National Screening Committee (NSC). HTA findings also help to improve the quality of clinical practice in the NHS indirectly in that they form a key component of the 'National Knowledge Service'. The HTA programme is needs led in that it fills gaps in the evidence needed by the NHS. There are three routes to the start of project...

show abstract

Section: Changes In Publication Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases

Song

Parekh²,

Hooper³

et al. 2010

Health Technol Assess

799

682

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…EQUATOR is an international initiative that seeks to improve the value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines (17,18 ). The STARD group believes that working more closely with EQUATOR and other reporting guideline developers will help us to better reach shared objectives.…”

Section: Availabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. © 2015 American Association for Clinical ChemistryAs researchers, we talk and write about our studies, not just because we are happy-or disappointed-with the findings, but also to allow others to appreciate the validity of our methods, to enable our colleagues to replicate what we did, and to disclose our findings to clinicians, other health care professionals, and decision-makers, all of whom rely on the results of strong research to guide their actions.Unfortunately, deficiencies in the reporting of research have been highlighted in several areas of clinical medicine (1 ). Essential elements of study methods are often poorly described and sometimes completely omitted, making both critical appraisal and replication difficult, if not impossible. Sometimes study results are selectively reported, and other times researchers cannot resist unwarranted optimism in interpretation of their findings (2-4 ). These practices limit the value of the research and any downstream products or activities, such as systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines.Reports of studies of medical tests are no exception. A growing number of evaluations have identified deficiencies in the reporting of test accuracy studies (5 ). These are studies in which a test is evaluated against a clinical reference standard, or gold standard; the results are typically reported as estimates of the test's sensitivity and specificity, which express how good the test is in correctly identifying patients as having the target condition. Other accuracy statistics can be used as well, such as the area under the ROC curve or positive and negative predictive values.Despite their apparent simplicity, such studies are at risk of bias (6, 7 ). If not all patients undergoing testing are included in the final analysis, for example, or if only healthy controls are included, the estimates of test accuracy may not reflect the performance of the test in clinical

show abstract

“…20,21 As has been done with other reporting guidelines, 22 we aim to develop a more detailed explanation and elaboration report that provides more detail on the rationale for each item included in the checklist and provides some empirical evidence of good reporting of incidence and prevalence studies for neurologic disorders. The preliminary aims and objectives of the guideline have been posted on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network 23,24 and we plan to post the checklist and the explanation and elaboration report on the EQUATOR Web site (http://www.equator-network.org).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders (STROND) checklist

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research

Cited by 236 publications

References 12 publications

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Development of the Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders (STROND) checklist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About