451 research outputs found
Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual
Limits of agreement provide a straightforward and intuitive approach to agreement between different methods for measuring the same quantity. When pairs of observations using the two methods are independent, i.e., on different subjects, the calculations are very simple and straightforward. Some authors collect repeated data, either as repeated pairs of measurements on the same subject, whose true value of the measured quantity may be changing, or more than one measurement by one or both methods of an unchanging underlying quantity. In this paper we describe methods for analysing such clustered observations, both when the underlying quantity is assumed to be changing and when it is not
Improving Bioscience Research Reporting:The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research
In the last decade the number of bioscience journals has increased enormously, with many filling specialised niches reflecting new disciplines and technologies. The emergence of open-access journals has revolutionised the publication process, maximising the availability of research data. Nevertheless, a wealth of evidence shows that across many areas, the reporting of biomedical research is often inadequate, leading to the view that even if the science is sound, in many cases the publications themselves are not “fit for purpose”, meaning that incomplete reporting of relevant information effectively renders many publications of limited value as instruments to inform policy or clinical and scientific practice [1–21]. A recent review of clinical research showed that there is considerable cumulative waste of financial resources at all stages of the research process, including as a result of publications that are unusable due to poor reporting [22]. It is unlikely that this issue is confined to clinical research [2–14,16–20]
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
The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development
Abstract
Background
A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design.
Primary Objective. Develop, disseminate, and implement systematic reporting guidelines for case reports.
Methods
We used a three-phase consensus process consisting of (1) pre-meeting literature review and interviews to generate items for the reporting guidelines, (2) a face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the reporting guidelines, and (3) post-meeting feedback, review, and pilot testing, followed by finalization of the case report guidelines.
Results
This consensus process involved 27 participants and resulted in a 13-item checklist—a reporting guideline for case reports. The primary items of the checklist are title, key words, abstract, introduction, patient information, clinical findings, timeline, diagnostic assessment, therapeutic interventions, follow-up and outcomes, discussion, patient perspective, and informed consent.
Conclusions
We believe the implementation of the CARE (CAse REport) guidelines by medical journals will improve the completeness and transparency of published case reports and that the systematic aggregation of information from case reports will inform clinical study design, provide early signals of effectiveness and harms, and improve healthcare delivery.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112624/1/13256_2013_Article_2617.pd
Discrepancies in sample size calculations and data analyses reported in randomised trials: comparison of publications with protocols
Objective To evaluate how often sample size calculations and methods of statistical analysis are pre-specified or changed in randomised trials
The CARE Guidelines: Consensus‐Based Clinical Case Reporting Guideline Development
Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/101880/1/head12246.pd
Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development: The COS-STAD recommendations
Background The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]). Methods and findings An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1–9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process. Conclusions The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods
- …