Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network

Although current electronic methods of scientific publishing offer increased opportunities for publishing all research studies and describing them in sufficient detail, health research literature still suffers from many shortcomings. These shortcomings seriously undermine the value and utility of the literature and waste scarce resources invested in the research. In recent years there have been several positive steps aimed at improving this situation, such as a strengthening of journals' policies on research publication and the wide requirement to register clinical trials

CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials

Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience

How to write an ICS/IUGA conference abstract

Contains fulltext : 88292.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)INTRODUCTION: This article aims to condense the lectures and discussions from workshops on good reporting at IUGA Como 2009 and ICS San Francisco 2009, providing practical advice for the novice researcher summarising their data for the first time. CONCLUSIONS: Drafting an abstract can be a time consuming process. Formal guidance, such as CONSORT and STROBE, exists for the kinds of information that should be included regarding almost all designs of clinical trials. Follow the abstract submission rules closely to avoid outright rejection. Plan to highlight the novelty, scientific merit and clinical impact of the work. Try not to overstate the importance of the findings. Do not forget to publish the work in a peer reviewed journal.1 mei 201

Accuracy of drug advertisements in medical journals under new law regulating the marketing of pharmaceutical products in Switzerland

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>New legal regulations for the marketing of pharmaceutical products were introduced in 2002 in Switzerland. We investigated whether claims in drug advertisements citing published scientific studies were justified by these studies after the introduction of these new regulations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this cross-sectional study, two independent reviewers screened all issues of six major Swiss medical journals published in the year 2005 to identify all drug advertisements for analgesic, gastrointestinal and psychopharmacologic drugs and evaluated all drug advertisements referring to at least one publication. The pharmaceutical claim was rated as being supported, being based on a potentially biased study or not to be supported by the cited study according to pre-specified criteria. We also explored factors likely to be associated with supported advertisement claims.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 2068 advertisements 577 (28%) promoted analgesic, psychopharmacologic or gastrointestinal drugs. Among them were 323 (56%) advertisements citing at least one reference. After excluding multiple publications of the same drug advertisement and advertisements with non-informative references, there remained 29 unique advertisements with at least one reference to a scientific study. These 29 advertisements contained 78 distinct pairs of claims of analgesic, gastrointestinal and psychopharmacologic drugs and referenced studies. Thirty-seven (47%) claims were supported, 16 (21%) claims were not supported by the corresponding reference, and 25 (32%) claims were based on potentially biased evidence, with no relevant differences between drug groups. Studies with conflict of interest and studies stating industry funding were more likely to support the corresponding claim (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.07–2.17 and RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.98–2.28) than studies without identified conflict of interest and studies without information on type of funding.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Following the introduction of new regulations for drug advertisement in Switzerland, 53% of all assessed pharmaceutical claims published in major medical journals are not supported by the cited referenced studies or based on potentially biased study information. In light of the discrepancy between the new legislation and the endorsement of these regulations, physicians should not trust drug advertisement claims even when they seem to refer to scientific studies.</p

Following 411 Cochrane Protocols to Completion: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Cochrane reviews are regarded as being scientifically rigorous and are increasingly used by a variety of stakeholders. However, factors predicting the publication of Cochrane reviews have never been reported. This is important because if a higher proportion of Cochrane protocols with certain characteristics (e.g., funding) are being published, this may lead to inaccurate decisions. We examined the frequency of published and unpublished Cochrane reviews and protocol factors that predict the publication of Cochrane reviews.Retrospective cohort study of Cochrane protocols published in 2000 (Issues 2 to 4) and 2001 (Issue 1). The publication status of these reviews was followed up to Issue 1, 2008 in The Cochrane Library. Survival analysis of the time from protocol publication to the first review publication and protocol factors predicting the time to publication was conducted. There were 411 new Cochrane protocols in the cohort. After excluding 39; 71/372 (19.1%) were unpublished and 301/372 (80.9%) were published as full Cochrane reviews at the time of study analysis (January 2008). The median time to publication was 2.4 years (range: 0.15 to 8.96). Multivariate analyses revealed that shorter time to publication was associated with the review subsequently being updated (hazard ratio, HR: 1.80 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.39 to 2.33 years]) and longer time to publication was associated with the review having two published protocols, indicating changes to the review plan (HR: 0.33 [95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90 years]).Only about 80% Cochrane protocols were published as full reviews after over 8 years of follow-up. The median time to publication was 2.4 years and some reviews took much longer. Strategies to decrease time to publication should be considered, such as streamlining the review process, increased support for authors when protocol amendments occur, and better infrastructure for updating Cochrane reviews

Negative pressure wound therapy: Potential publication bias caused by lack of access to unpublished study results data

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is widely applied, although the evidence base is weak. Previous reviews on medical interventions have shown that conclusions based on published data alone may no longer hold after consideration of unpublished data. The main objective of this study was to identify unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on NPWT within the framework of a systematic review.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>RCTs comparing NPWT with conventional wound therapy were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library. Every database was searched from inception to May 2005. The search was updated in December 2006. Reference lists of original articles and systematic reviews, as well as congress proceedings and online trial registers, were screened for clues to unpublished RCTs. Manufacturers of NPWT devices and authors of conference abstracts were contacted and asked to provide study information. Trials were considered nonrandomised if concealment of allocation to treatment groups was classified as "inadequate". The study status was classified as "completed", "discontinued", "ongoing" or "unclear". The publication status of completed or discontinued RCTs was classified as "published" if a full-text paper on final study results (completed trials) or interim results (discontinued trials) was available, and "unpublished" if this was not the case. The type of sponsorship was also noted for all trials.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 28 RCTs referring to at least 2755 planned or analysed patients met the inclusion criteria: 13 RCTs had been completed, 6 had been discontinued, 6 were ongoing, and the status of 3 RCTs was unclear. Full-text papers were available on 30% of patients in the 19 completed or discontinued RCTs (495 analysed patients in 10 published RCTs vs. 1154 planned patients in 9 unpublished RCTs). Most information about conference abstracts and unpublished study information referring to trials that were unpublished at the time these documents were generated was obtained from the manufacturer Kinetic Concepts Inc. (KCI) (19 RCTs), followed by The Cochrane Library (18) and a systematic review (15). We were able to obtain some information on the methods of unpublished RCTs, but results data were either not available or requests for results data were not answered; the results of unpublished RCTs could therefore not be considered in the review. One manufacturer, KCI, sponsored the majority of RCTs (19/28; 68%). The sponsorship of the remaining trials was unclear.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Multi-source comprehensive searches identify unpublished RCTs. However, lack of access to unpublished study results data raises doubts about the completeness of the evidence base on NPWT.</p