Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , Volume 122 p. 87- 94
Objectives: Appropriate use of reporting guidelines of health research ensures that articles present readers with a consistent representation of study relevance, methodology, and results. This study evaluated the use of major reporting guidelines. Study Design and Setting: A cross-sectional analysis of health research articles citing four major reporting guidelines indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection (up to June 24, 2018). Two independent reviews were performed in a random sample of 200 articles, including clinical trials (N = 50), economic evaluations (N = 50), systematic reviews (N = 50), and animal research studies (N = 50). The use of reporting guidelines to guide the reporting of research studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of the reporting guidelines as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct the studies. Results: Across all selected reporting guidelines, appropriate use of reporting guidelines was observed in only 39% (95% CI: 32-46%; 78/200) of articles. By contrast, inappropriate use was observed in 41% (95% CI: 34-48%; 82/200), and unclear/other use was observed in 20% (95% CI: 15-26%; 40/200). Conclusions: Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately. Authors may require further education around appropriate use of the reporting guidelines in research reporting.
|Animal studies, Clinical trials, Economic evaluations, Reporting guideline, Research reporting, Systematic reviews|
|Journal of Clinical Epidemiology|
|Organisation||Department of Epidemiology|
Caulley, L. (Lisa), Catalá-López, F. (Ferrán), Whelan, J. (Jonathan), Khoury, M. (Michel), Ferraro, J. (Jennifer), Cheng, W. (Wei), … Moher, D. (David). (2020). Reporting guidelines of health research studies are frequently used inappropriately. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 122, 87–94. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.006