Improving the reporting and usability of research studies

PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews

“…Poor reporting in research has serious implications for waste in healthcare research investments because it requires duplication of experiments. [81][82][83][84] There is strong evidence that poor reporting of efficacy-and potentially of harms, in animal studies, clinical studies, and systematic reviews-lead to misinterpretation of research results and ultimately contributes to poor patient care. 12 56-58 81-85 PRISMA harms have been designed to help promote transparency in reporting.…”

Review article: Reporting Guidelines in the biomedical literature

“…Although reporting guidelines are among the most cited articles in the biomedical literature, authors are often not aware of particular items required by the respective reporting guidelines prior to manuscript submission. 77 This problem could be improved by better dissemination of reporting guidelines and by ensuring that research projects are designed to include the essential reporting items. 78 Recently, the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) Statement was published with the aim of improving the quality of study protocols for clinical trials.…”

“…79 A lack of consistency in the endorsement and implementation of reporting guidelines by biomedical journals has been problematic. 77 Some reporting guidelines suggest a preferred approach for journals to implement their respective guidelines, 23 but often the language used in the ''Instructions for Authors'' to endorse the guidelines is vague and differs amongst journals. 61 Additionally, to ensure that authors comply with reporting guidelines, editors and peer reviewers must check individual checklist items -a practice that can be time consuming and may be ineffective depending on the approach of the reviewer.…”

Endorsement of reporting guidelines is our next step

“…Poorly designed reports lead to a waste of money in research. The lack of training and knowledge of existing tools by authors, editors and peer reviewers is the main reason (3) . Moreover, the public expects that research is conducted and reported to the highest standards (4,5) .…”

“…The main mechanism for dissemination and acceptance of reporting guidelines among authors and reviewers has been its endorsement by journals. Such endorsement is usually done by a statement of support in a journal's "Instructions for Authors", encouraging authors to adopt a checklist when submitting their manuscript (3) . In conclusion, the reporting guidelines will not be an additional obstacle for publication.…”