Objective To investigate the effect of an additional review based on reporting guidelines such as STROBE and CONSORT on quality of manuscripts.Design Masked randomised trial.Population Original research manuscripts submitted to the Medicina Clínica journal from May 2008 to April 2009 and considered suitable for publication.Intervention Control group: conventional peer reviews alone. Intervention group: conventional review plus an additional review looking for missing items from reporting guidelines.Outcomes Manuscript quality, assessed with a 5 point Likert scale (primary: overall quality; secondary: average quality of specific items in paper). Main analysis compared groups as allocated, after adjustment for baseline factors (analysis of covariance); sensitivity analysis compared groups as reviewed. Adherence to reviewer suggestions assessed with Likert scale.Results Of 126 consecutive papers receiving conventional review, 34 were not suitable for publication. The remaining 92 papers were allocated to receive conventional reviews alone (n=41) or additional reviews (n=51). Four papers assigned to the conventional review group deviated from protocol; they received an additional review based on reporting guidelines. We saw an improvement in manuscript quality in favour of the additional review group (comparison as allocated, 0.25, 95% confidence interval –0.05 to 0.54; as reviewed, 0.33, 0.03 to 0.63). More papers with additional reviews than with conventional reviews alone improved from baseline (22 (43%) v eight (20%), difference 23.6% (3.2% to 44.0%), number needed to treat 4.2 (from 2.3 to 31.2), relative risk 2.21 (1.10 to 4.44)). Authors in the additional review group adhered more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews (average increase 0.43 Likert points (0.19 to 0.67)).Conclusions Additional reviews based on reporting guidelines improve manuscript quality, although the observed effect was smaller than hypothesised and not definitively demonstrated. Authors adhere more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews, showing difficulties in adhering to high methodological standards at the latest research phases. To boost paper quality and impact, authors should be aware of future requirements of reporting guidelines at the very beginning of their study. Trial registration and protocol Although registries do not include trials of peer review, the protocol design was submitted to sponsored research projects (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, PI081903).

Churg-Strauss syndrome is a rare disorder characterized by hypereosinophilia and systemic vasculitis occurring in patients with asthma and allergic rhinitis. Vasculitis commonly affects the lungs, skin and peripheral nervous system. Outcome and long-term survival is usually good with steroids alone or in combination with immunosuppressive agents. The syndrome has a low mortality rate compared with other systemic vasculitides.

BackgroundAlthough peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both.Methodology and Principal FindingsInterventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with “no statistical expert” and “no checklist” as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2×2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6–24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: −0.3–+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3–6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality.Conclusions and SignificanceThis prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines.

The effects of pregnancy on the course of Behçet's disease (BD), and vice versa, are unknown and little has been reported. We have studied three groups of women: (1) group A included 61 pregnancies in 23 women with BD, 25 pregnancies took place in 10 patients already diagnosed (group 1A) and 36 pregnancies occurred in 13 patients before disease diagnosis (group 2A); (2) group B included 30 females with 83 pregnancies affected by recurrent oral ulcers (ROU); (3) group C included 20 healthy women with 61 pregnancies. We investigated the effects of BD on pregnancy and fetal outcome, and the influence of gestation on the course of BD. A questionnaire was used in which specific information about each pregnancy, labour and puerperium was collected. We looked for medical confirmation in all cases where any pathology had been identified. No significant differences were found in the incidence of pregnancy complications between groups. The incidence of perinatal death was also similar and neither congenital abnormalities nor neonatal BD were observed. Only two patients observed a flare of the disease and in two cases the diagnosis of BD was made during the pregnancy. In our series, the outcome of pregnancy was generally good in BD patients, disease manifestations were not consistently worsened and fetal outcome was excellent. The first case of Budd-Chiari syndrome during the puerperium in a BD patient is reported.