The quality of safety reporting in trials is still suboptimal: Survey of major general medical journals

Declaración de trasparencia: promoviendo una publicación más completa, honesta y adecuada de los artículos cientítificos

“…However, occasionally, some research descriptions remain vague and still lack important information, basically as regards methods and results 11,12 . There are numerous examples in the scientific literature [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] of the serious defects existing in published scientific articles, to include omitted information on evaluated interventions, the criteria used to include/exclude samples, and a full description of both methodology (enabling the research to be reproduced) and results, amongst others. Other common problems are publication bias (non-communication of the study depending on the nature and magnitude of results) and selective reporting bias (selective revealing or suppression of information) [19][20][21][22][23] .…”

Improving the reporting and usability of research studies

“…24 Several studies have attempted to gauge the impact of reporting guidelines; [25][26][27][28][29] however, research on the effect of efforts to ensure adherence to reporting guidelines is missing from this body of evidence.…”

“…24 Plusieurs études ont tenté d'évaluer l'impact des directives de présentation. [25][26][27][28][29] Toutefois, il manque à ce corpus de données probantes des recherches concernant l'effet des Improving the reporting and usability of research studies 341 efforts faits pour garantir le respect des directives de présentation. L'appui aux directives de présentation par les revues a été le mécanisme principal de leur adoption par et de leur diffusion aux utilisateurs cibles -c'est-à-dire les auteurs et les lecteurs experts.…”

Prioritization and Selection of Harms for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews

“…However, synthesizing evidence on harms poses unique challenges. The assessment and reporting of harms is often suboptimal, [1][2][3] studies are often too short to evaluate important long-term harms and have inadequate statistical power to evaluate serious but uncommon harms, 5,6 patients enrolled in research studies are frequently at lower risk for harms than those encountered in clinical practice, 7 potentially resulting in underestimation of harms, and important data on harms may be unpublished or selectively reported. [9][10][11] In 2005, AHRQ funded a series of white papers on challenges in evidence synthesis that included an article on evaluation of harms.…”