Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol

Introduction There is evidence that the use of some reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, is associated with improved completeness of reporting in health research. However, the current levels of adherence to reporting guidelines are suboptimal. Over the last few years, several actions aiming to improve compliance with reporting guidelines have been taken and proposed. We will conduct a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research that have been evaluated or suggested, in order to inform future interventions. Methods and analysis Our review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. We will search for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Moreover, we will carry out lateral searches from the reference lists of the included studies, as well as from the lists of articles citing the included ones. One reviewer will screen the full list, which will be randomly split into two halves and independently screened by the other two reviewers. Two reviewers will perform data extraction independently. Discrepancies will be solved through discussion. In addition, this search strategy will be supplemented by a grey literature search. The interventions found will be classified as assessed or suggested, as well as according to different criteria, in relation to their target (journal policies, journal editors, authors, reviewers, funders, ethical boards or others) or the research stage at which they are performed (design, conducting, reporting or peer review). Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer reviewed journal. This scoping review will contribute to a better understanding and a broader perspective on how the problem of adhering better to reporting guidelines has been tackled so far. This could be a major first step towards developing future strategies to improve compliance with reporting guidelines in health research

T Cells Specific for a Mycobacterial Glycolipid Expand after Intravenous Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Vaccination

Intradermal vaccination with Mycobacterium bovis bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) protects infants from disseminated tuberculosis, and i.v. BCG protects nonhuman primates (NHP) against pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis. In humans and NHP, protection is thought to be mediated by T cells, which typically recognize bacterial peptide Ags bound to MHC proteins. However, during vertebrate evolution, T cells acquired the capacity to recognize lipid Ags bound to CD1a, CD1b, and CD1c proteins expressed on APCs. It is unknown whether BCG induces T cell immunity to mycobacterial lipids and whether CD1-restricted T cells are resident in the lung. In this study, we developed and validated Macaca mulatta (Mamu) CD1b and CD1c tetramers to probe ex vivo phenotypes and functions of T cells specific for glucose monomycolate (GMM), an immunodominant mycobacterial lipid Ag. We discovered that CD1b and CD1c present GMM to T cells in both humans and NHP. We show that GMM-specific T cells are expanded in rhesus macaque blood 4 wk after i.v. BCG, which has been shown to protect NHP with near-sterilizing efficacy upon M. tuberculosis challenge. After vaccination, these T cells are detected at high frequency within bronchoalveolar fluid and express CD69 and CD103, markers associated with resident memory T cells. Thus, our data expand the repertoire of T cells known to be induced by whole cell mycobacterial vaccines, such as BCG, and show that lipid Ag-specific T cells are resident in the lungs, where they may contribute to protective immunity

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research

Mejorar la comunicación de estudios observacionales en epidemiología (STROBE): explicación y elaboración

Gran parte de la investigación biomédica es de tipo observacional. Los informes de los estudios observacionales a menudo poseen una calidad insuficiente, lo que dificulta la evaluación de sus fortalezas y debilidades para generalizar los resultados. Teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica y consideraciones teóricas, un grupo de expertos en metodología, investigadores y editores de revistas científicas, desarrollaron una lista de recomendaciones para aumentar la calidad de las publicaciones de los estudios observacionales: (STROBE). La Declaración STROBE consiste en una lista de verificación de 22 puntos que guardan relación con las diferentes secciones de un artículo: título, resumen, introducción, metodología, resultados y discusión. De ellos, 18 puntos son comunes a los tres diseños de estudio: cohorte, casos y controles, y transversales; los otros cuatro son específicos para cada una de estas tres modalidades. La Declaración STROBE proporciona a los autores información sobre cómo mejorar la calidad de los artículos sobre estudios observacionales y facilita a los revisores, editores de revistas y lectores su apreciación crítica y su interpretación. Este documento explicativo tiene el propósito de impulsar el uso, la comprensión y la difusión de la Declaración STROBE. Se presentan el significado y el análisis razonado para cada punto de la lista de verificación, proporcionando uno o varios ejemplos publicados en la literatura y, en lo posible, referencias de estudios empíricos relevantes y literatura metodológica. También se incluyen ejemplos de diagramas de flujo. La Declaración STROBE, el presente documento y la página Web asociada () son recursos útiles para mejorar la divulgación de la investigación observacional.Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site () should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration.

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www. strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research. Present article is Russian-language translation of the original manuscript edited by Doctor of Medicine R.T. Saygitov.Present translation was first published in Digital Diagnostics. doi: 10.17816/DD70821. It is published with minor changes related to the literary editing of the translation itself

Повышение качества отчётов о наблюдательных исследованиях в эпидемиологии (STROBE): разъяснения и уточнения

Большинство медицинских исследований являются наблюдательными (observational). Сообщения о таких ис-следованиях часто невысокого качества, что затрудняет оценку сильных и слабых сторон работы, а также обоб-щаемости (generalizability) её результатов. Принимая во внимание эмпирические свидетельства и теоретические соображения, группа методологов, исследователей и научных редакторов разработала рекомендации «Повышение качества отчётов о наблюдательных исследованиях в эпидемиологии (STROBE): разъяснения и уточнения». Реко-мендации STROBE содержат 22 пункта, связанных с оформлением следующих разделов научных статей: название, аннотация, введение, методы, результаты и их обсуждение, при этом 18 пунктов являются общими для когортных исследований (cohort studies), исследований «случай–контроль» (case-control studies) и одномоментных исследова-ний (cross-sectional studies); 4 пункта специфичны для каждого из указанных дизайнов исследований (study designs). STROBE ― руководство для авторов, необходимое для повышения качества отчётов о наблюдательных исследова-ниях, облегчающее критическую оценку исследования и его интерпретацию рецензентами, редакторами журналов и читателями. Цель этой разъясняющей и уточняющей статьи ― способствовать более широкому применению, пониманию и распространению стандартов STROBE. В ней даётся разъяснение смысла и обоснование применения каждого пункта руководства (checklist). По каждому пункту приводятся один или несколько опубликованных при-меров правильного представления исследований и, при возможности, библиографические ссылки на подходящие эмпирические исследования и методологическую литературу. Представлены примеры потоковых диаграмм (flow diagrams) для описания последовательности исследования. Рекомендации STROBE, настоящая статья и соответ-ствующий веб-сайт (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) должны стать полезным источником для повышения качества отчётов о результатах наблюдательных исследований. This article is the reprint with Russian translation of the original that can be observed here: Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297

Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND: Although peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Interventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with “no statistical expert” and “no checklist” as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2×2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6–24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: −0.3–+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3–6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: This prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines

DETECTION OF BUILDING ROOFS AND FACADES FROM AERIAL LASER SCANNING DATA USING DEEP LEARNING

In this work we test the power of prediction of deep learning for detection of buildings from aerial laser scanner point cloud information. Automatic extraction of built features from remote sensing data is of extreme interest for many applications. In particular latest paradigms of 3D mapping of buildings, such as CityGML and BIM, can benefit from an initial determination of building geometries. In this work we used a LiDAR dataset of urban environment from the ISPRS benchmark on urban object detection. The dataset is labelled with eight classes, two were used for this investigation: roof and facades. The objective is to test how TensorFlow neural network for deep learning can predict these two classes. Results show that for “roof” and “facades” semantic classes respectively, recall is 84% and 76% and precision is 72% and 63%. The number and distribution of correct points well represent the geometry, thus allowing to use them as support for CityGML and BIM modelling. Further tuning of the hidden layers of the DL model will likely improve results and will be tested in future investigations

Are pediatric Open Access journals promoting good publication practice? An analysis of author instructions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several studies analyzed whether conventional journals in general medicine or specialties such as pediatrics endorse recommendations aiming to improve publication practice. Despite evidence showing benefits of these recommendations, the proportion of endorsing journals has been moderate to low and varied considerably for different recommendations. About half of pediatric journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report referred to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) but only about a quarter recommended registration of trials. We aimed to investigate to what extent pediatric open-access (OA) journals endorse these recommendations. We hypothesized that a high proportion of these journals have adopted recommendations on good publication practice since OA electronic publishing has been associated with a number of editorial innovations aiming at improved access and transparency.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We identified 41 journals publishing original research in the subject category "Health Sciences, Medicine (General), Pediatrics" of the Directory of Open Access Journals <url>http://www.doaj.org</url>. From the journals' online author instructions we extracted information regarding endorsement of four domains of editorial policy: the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts, trial registration, disclosure of conflicts of interest and five major reporting guidelines such as the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement. Two investigators collected data independently.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The Uniform Requirements were mentioned by 27 (66%) pediatric OA journals. Thirteen (32%) required or recommended trial registration prior to publication of a trial report. Conflict of interest policies were stated by 25 journals (61%). Advice about reporting guidelines was less frequent: CONSORT was referred to by 12 journals (29%) followed by other reporting guidelines (MOOSE, PRISMA or STARD) (8 journals, 20%) and STROBE (3 journals, 7%). The EQUATOR network, a platform of several guideline initiatives, was acknowledged by 4 journals (10%).</p> <p>Journals published by OA publishing houses gave more guidance than journals published by professional societies or other publishers.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Pediatric OA journals mentioned certain recommendations such as the Uniform Requirements or trial registration more frequently than conventional journals; however, endorsement is still only moderate. Further research should confirm these exploratory findings in other medical fields and should clarify what the motivations and barriers are in implementing such policies.</p

General practitioners' reasoning when considering the diagnosis heart failure: a think-aloud study

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing chronic heart failure is difficult, especially in mild cases or early in the course of the disease, and guidelines are not easily implemented in everyday practice. The aim of this study was to investigate general practitioners' diagnostic reasoning about patients with suspected chronic heart failure in comparison with recommendations in European guidelines. METHODS: Think-aloud technique was used. Fifteen general practitioners reasoned about six case vignettes, representing authentic patients with suspected chronic heart failure. Information about each case was added successively in five steps. The general practitioners said their thoughts aloud while reasoning about the probability of the patient having chronic heart failure, and tried to decide about the diagnosis. Arguments for and against chronic heart failure were analysed and compared to recommendations in guidelines. RESULTS: Information about ejection fraction was the most frequent diagnostic argument, followed by information about cardiac enlargement or pulmonary congestion on chest X-ray. However, in a third of the judgement situations, no information about echocardiography was utilized in the general practitioners' diagnostic reasoning. Only three of the 15 doctors used information about a normal electrocardiography as an argument against chronic heart failure. Information about other cardio-vascular diseases was frequently used as a diagnostic argument. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical information was not utilized to the extent recommended in guidelines. Some implications of our study are that 1) general practitioners need more information about how to utilize echocardiography when diagnosing chronic heart failure, 2) guidelines ought to give more importance to information about other cardio-vascular diseases in the diagnostic reasoning, and 3) guidelines ought to treat the topic of diastolic heart failure in a clearer way