Impact of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations With Nonrandomized Designs Reporting Guideline: Ten Years On

Fuller, Thomas; Peters, Jaime; Pearson, Mark; Anderson, R.J.

doi:10.2105/ajph.2014.302195

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Chi‐square tests of association indicated that studies that had used TREND were more likely to have higher study quality ratings than those that had not used it. The results provide some evidence that using TREND improves the completeness of reports of studies with non‐randomised designs (Fuller et al., ). However even when using a “generous” coding standard to determine whether an item was reported or not, there were still suboptimal levels of reporting completeness.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 75%

“…We found that the average reporting completeness of papers that had used the TREND guideline was 75% [95% CI 72–77] compared with 65% [95% CI 62–68] with studies that had not used TREND (Fuller, Peters, Pearson, & Anderson, ). Chi‐square tests of association indicated that studies that had used TREND were more likely to have higher study quality ratings than those that had not used it.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving the Reporting of Health and Psychological Research

Fuller

Pearson

Peters

2016

Australian Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of empirical evidence has consistently demonstrated that much publically and privately funded research is reported in a way that makes it difficult for the findings to be included in evidence syntheses or used by researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and the public. Poorly reported studies thus represent a significant waste of scarce resources. Reporting guidelines are one strategy that has been increasingly used as a method to improve the completeness or usability of primary and secondary research across a broad range of disciplines including psychology. We present a synopsis of two studies investigating the impact of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluation with Nonrandomised Designs statement and factors that affect authors' and journal editors' use of it and other reporting guidelines. We also make recommendations for future guideline development or revisions based on our experiences, provide details of resources for psychologists, and make suggestions for future research and recommendations for improving the transparency of reporting of psychological research.

show abstract

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the Reporting of Health and Psychological Research

Fuller

Pearson

Peters

2016

Australian Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sin embargo, la evidencia al respecto es contradictoria 18,19 , lo que puede estar influenciado por múltiples factores. En cualquier caso, la utilidad de estas herramientas cuando son utilizadas correctamente a lo largo de la preparación de los manuscritos es innegable.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Pautas De Chequeo, Parte Ii: Quorom Y Prisma

Cartes‐Velásquez

2015

Rev Chil Cir

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

cheklists, part ii: QuOrum and PrismaSystematic reviews, especially those that include meta-analysis, are the designs that provide the highest level of evidence. However, like other research designs, they can present with low quality reports that undermine the contribution they can make to readers, generating doubts about their validity. To address this situation, various actors in the biomedical sciences developed in the mid 1990s the qUORUM statement, consisting of 18 items grouped into six domains, with the aim of improving the quality of reports of metaanalyzes. In 2009 the same group published the PRISMA statement as an evolution of the previous one, allowing conducting systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials and other types of design, consisting of 7 domains with 27 items. Like other checklists, their impact in the practice has been variable, but certainly contributes to the improvement of the report. This article describes both checklists for use by the authors of the Revista Chilena de Cirugía, in order to achieve an improvement of their articles in a simple and efficient way.Key words: Research report, methodological quality, systematic review, meta-analysis. resumenLas revisiones sistemáticas (RS), especialmente las que incluyen meta-análisis, son los diseños que aportan el más alto nivel de evidencia en la actualidad. Sin embargo, al igual que los otros diseños de investigación pueden presentarse con reportes de baja calidad que merman el aporte que pueden realizar a los lectores, generando cuestionamientos acerca de su validez. Para enfrentar esta situación, diversos actores de las ciencias biomédicas desarrollaron a mediados de la década de 1990 la pauta qUORUM, constituida por 18 ítems agrupados en 6 dominios, con el objetivo de mejorar la calidad de los reportes de meta-análisis. En 2009 el mismo grupo de trabajo qUORUM publicó la pauta PRISMA como una evolución de la anterior, permitiendo realizar revisiones sistemáticas de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados y otros tipos de diseño, la que consta de 7 dominios con 27 ítems. Al igual que como con otras pautas de chequeo, su impacto en la práctica ha sido variable, pero sin duda aportan en la mejora del reporte. Este artículo describe ambos checklists para su uso por parte de los autores de la Revista Chilena de Cirugía, con el fin de lograr una mejora de sus artí-culos de una forma simple y eficiente.Palabras clave: Reporte de investigación, calidad metodológica, revisión sistemática, meta-análisis.

show abstract

“…The sixth step consisted of evaluating the methodological quality, using the PEDro 15,16 scale for RCTs and the TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs) scale 17,18 for the QE studies. The PEDro scale is composed of 11 items, each item contributing with 1 point (except for item 1 that is not punctuated) and the final score ranges from 0 to 10.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…16 The TREND school is a guideline composed of 23 items, each item contributing with one point to the total score, but there are still no determined criteria to classify the final score of this scale. 17,18 Finally, the seventh and last stage involving the data extraction was performed. In order to meet the objectives of this systematic review, the following data were extracted from the included studies: population studied, type of physical exercise performed, intervention protocol, variables analyzed, method of measuring the outcomes, conclusion and results.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of interventions in the improvement of muscle resistance in the elderly: a systematic review

Luiz

Faria

2017

Acta Fisiátrica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global population aging has been much discussed in the last decade. China, Japan, and countries in Europe and North America have long lived with a large contingent of elderly people and all the problems associated with this aging process. However, the Brazilian elderly population, more specifically the female population, has been growing rapidly: the aging process in Brazil is occurring in a short period of time. With aging, loss of skeletal muscle mass as a whole is common. The impairment of muscle strength in the elderly individual is evident, since the loss of type II fibers is greater than type I. However, loss of type I muscle fibers also occurs during aging, and therefore, characteristics related to this type of fiber, such as muscular endurance, should also be considered by health professionals. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy of intervention programs in improving muscular endurance in the elderly. The secondary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of these programs in improving other functional and health outcomes in this population. Method: Systematic review of literature based on the Prisma protocol (Pre-sent Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes), with searches in the MEDLINE, PEDro, LILACS and SCIELO databases, using a specific search strategy involving descriptors related to the elderly And muscular endurance. We included studies published in Portuguese and English, of the quasi-experimental (EQ) or randomized clinical trial (RCT), which involved elderly individuals and approached the skeletal muscles of lower limbs, upper limbs or trunk, and evaluated the efficacy of interventions for Improvement of muscular endurance. Results: A total of 133 studies were found with the electronic search. Of these, only 13 met the inclusion criteria, being 7 RCTs and 6 QE. The mean score obtained by the RCTs on the PEDro scale was 5.57, while the mean score obtained by the TRENDs was 18.57. Among the seven RCTs, all were classified as having adequate methodological quality. Conclusion: According to the results of most of the included studies, intervention programs elaborated according to the specific characteristics of the muscular endurance concept are effective in improving muscular endurance and other functional and health outcomes of healthy elderly. Further studies are needed to investigate the efficacy of interventions aimed at improving the muscular endurance of elderly individuals who have some associated health condition or specific disability.

show abstract

Impact of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations With Nonrandomized Designs Reporting Guideline: Ten Years On

Cited by 23 publications

References 41 publications

Improving the Reporting of Health and Psychological Research

Improving the Reporting of Health and Psychological Research

Pautas De Chequeo, Parte Ii: Quorom Y Prisma

Effectiveness of interventions in the improvement of muscle resistance in the elderly: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About