Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: A before and after study

Agha, Riaz; Fowler, Alexander J.; Limb, Christopher; Whitehurst, Katharine; Coe, Robert; Sagoo, Harkiran; Jafree, Daniyal J.; Chandrakumar, Charmilie; Gundogan, Buket

doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.032

Cited by 75 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such substantial improvements in reporting were also seen within a couple of years after implementation of other reporting guidelines (e.g. STARD, CONSORT) [10,31]. Therefore, to further improve the quality of reporting, journals should revise the instruction to authors by including the requirement, or at least a recommendation, to use a reporting guideline for the reporting of the submitted manuscript.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This should be actively implemented by editorial teams and/or peer reviewers [24]. Mandating submission of a completed reporting guideline checklist might further increase quality of reporting, forcing authors to critically look at their quality of reporting before submission of the manuscript [10].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, adequate reporting of the methodology, the results, and the risk of bias is essential for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence provided [5,9]. Clear, complete, and transparent reported research aids reproducibility and critical appraisal [10]. Therefore, the PRISMA statement was formulated to address the problem of suboptimal reporting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEmergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement.MethodsThe top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement.ResultsThe included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001).ConclusionThere is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12873-019-0233-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Rehabilitation Medicine, for example, the editors of 38 journals all agreed to require adherence of submissions to guidelines relevant to their field (Chan et al, 2014). Similar statements have been made in dermatology (Anon, 2015;Anstey et al, 2015), surgical (Agha et al, 2016;Roisin, 2016), anaesthetic (Stevanovic et al, 2015) and public health journals, such as BMC Public Health (BMC Public Health, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 87%

Endorsing Reporting Guidelines: the Journal of Infection Prevention helps show the way!

Stone

Cookson

2016

Journal of Infection Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Additionally, a new tool to assess the risk of bias in SRs called ROBIS has been published [6]. Reporting quality of SRs has also improved [7–10], and since many reporting items are similar for SRs and overviews an increase in the reporting, quality of overviews might also be expected. Furthermore, a scoping review summarizing existing guidance for conducting overviews of healthcare interventions was recently published [11], and the chapter on overviews in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [1] is currently being updated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012–2016: protocol for a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOverviews of systematic reviews (overviews) attempt to systematically retrieve and summarize the results of multiple systematic reviews (SRs) for a given condition or public health problem. Two prior descriptive analyses of overviews found substantial variation in the methodological approaches used in overviews, and deficiencies in reporting of key methodological steps. Since then, new methods have been developed so it is timely to update the prior descriptive analyses. The objectives are to: (1) investigate the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 100 overviews published from 2012 to 2016 and (2) compare these recently published overviews (2012–2016) to those published prior to 2012 (based on the prior descriptive analyses).MethodsMedline, EMBASE, and CDSR will be searched for overviews published 2012–2016, using a validated search filter for overviews. Only overviews written in English will be included. All titles and abstracts will be screened by one review author; those deemed not relevant will be verified by a second person for exclusion. Full-texts will be assessed for inclusion by two reviewers independently. Of those deemed relevant, a random sample of 100 overviews will be selected for inclusion. Data extraction will be either performed by one reviewer with verification by a second reviewer or by one reviewer only depending on the complexity of the item. Discrepancies at any stage will be resolved by consensus or consulting a third person. Data will be extracted on the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of each overview. Data will be analyzed descriptively. When data are available for both time points (up to 2011 vs. 2012–2016), we will compare characteristics by calculating risk ratios or applying the Mann-Whitney test.DiscussionOverviews are becoming increasingly valuable evidence syntheses, and the number of published overviews is increasing. However, former analyses found limitations in the conduct and reporting of overviews. This update of a recent sample of overviews will inform whether this has changed, while also identifying areas for further improvement.Systematic review registrationThe review will not be registered in PROSPERO as it does not meet the eligibility criterion of dealing with health-related outcomes.

show abstract

Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: A before and after study

Abstract: Implementing a policy mandating the submission of a completed reporting guideline checklist for observational studies, RCTs and systematic reviews can increase compliance. We advocate this measure for other journals and for other study types.

Cited by 75 publications

References 13 publications

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement

Endorsing Reporting Guidelines: the Journal of Infection Prevention helps show the way!

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012–2016: protocol for a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About