Trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in cardiovascular journals

Sims, Matt; Bowers, Aaron; Fernan, Jamie Morgan; Dormire, Kody; Herrington, James Murphy; Vassar, Matt

doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312165

Cited by 28 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our estimates of CONSORT (32%) endorsement are aligned with previous research, in pediatrics (20%), hematology and oncology (33%), cardiology (53%), emergency medicine (56%), and oncology (76%) [22,24,31e33]. Similarly, PRISMA (21%) endorsement is consistent with previous estimates in emergency medicine (21%) and nursing (44%) [32,34]. The association between endorsement of different reporting guidelines was also reproduced in this study as journals mentioning CONSORT or PRISMA were also more likely to mention STROBE [35].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions

Sharp

Tokalić

Gómez

et al. 2019

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement provides guidance on reporting observational studies. Many extensions have been created for specialized methods or fields. We determined endorsement prevalence and typology by journals in extension-related fields.Study Design and Setting: A published protocol defined search strategies to identify journals publishing observational studies (2007e2017) across seven fields relating to STROBE extensions. We extracted text regarding STROBE, seven STROBE extensions,

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions

Sharp

Tokalić

Gómez

et al. 2019

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This may help ensure that abstracts are free from spin by the time they reach researchers, clinicians and lay people. Additionally, reporting guidelines are already being used by several journals to ensure accurate and transparent reporting of clinical trial results,28 29 and the use of such guidelines improves trial reporting 30 31. While the recently published Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for abstracts does not contain language discouraging spin,32 research reporting could be improved by discouraging spin in abstracts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals

Jellison

Roberts

Bowers

et al. 2019

BMJ EBM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have identified ‘spin’ in abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with nonsignificant primary endpoints in psychiatry and psychology journals. This is a cross-sectional review of clinical trials with nonsignificant primary endpoints published in psychiatry and psychology journals from January 2012 to December 2017. The main outcome was the frequency and manifestation of spin in the abstracts. We define spin as the ‘use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a statistically nonsignificant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from statistically nonsignificant results’. We have also assessed the relationship between industry funding and spin. Of the 486 RCTs examined, 116 were included in our analysis of spin. Spin was identified in 56% (n=65) of those included. Spin was found in 2 (2%) titles, 24 (21%) abstract results sections and 57 (49.1%) abstract conclusion sections. Evidence of spin was simultaneously identified in both results and conclusions sections in 15% of RCTs (n=17). Twelve articles reported industry funding (10%). Industry funding was not associated with increased odds of spin in the abstract (unadjusted OR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.3 to 3.2). We found no relationship between industry funding and spin in abstracts. These findings raise concerns about the effects spin may have on clinicians. Further steps could be taken to address spin, including inviting reviewers to comment on the presence of spin and updating Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines to contain language discouraging spin.

show abstract

“…Adherence to research reporting guidelines is meant to ensure that researchers disclose critical details needed to assess validity, giving clinical guideline developers and all users of research the necessary full information for quality assessment and patient care 1011. Use for promotion would be difficult to document because journals do not routinely require adherence to reporting guidelines, beyond using CONSORT diagrams for randomized trials 1213. This goal might be best achieved by journals requiring documentation of adherence to reporting guidelines rather than by promotion committees incentivizing adherence.…”

Section: Value and Feasibility Of Non-traditional Criteria For Promotionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for academic promotion in medicine

Sox

Schuster

2020

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in cardiovascular journals

Cited by 28 publications

References 30 publications

A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions

A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions

Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals

Criteria for academic promotion in medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About