Reporting health and medical research

The use of the best available evidence to inform patient care in evidence-based medicine is reliant on the accurate, complete and transparent reporting of health and medical research. Without a complete and transparent account of what was done and what was found during a research study, findings cannot be fully understood, replicated, assessed for validity and applicability, and used to inform clinical and policy decisions. For over 50 years, problems of incomplete and poor reporting of research have been widely documented across health and medical research. Unusable research reports contribute to avoidable research waste through the inability to appraise and synthesise research and can detrimentally impact patient care through incorrect implementation of research findings. Because of this, complete and transparent reporting of research is a researcher’s moral and ethical responsibility to maximise the usefulness and positive impact of their research. Our objective in this article is to provide an overview of reporting guidelines and other key tools available to increase transparent reporting and to outline relevant challenges and potential solutions to their use by research stakeholders.</p

Reporting health and medical research

The use of the best available evidence to inform patient care in evidence-based medicine is reliant on the accurate, complete and transparent reporting of health and medical research. Without a complete and transparent account of what was done and what was found during a research study, findings cannot be fully understood, replicated, assessed for validity and applicability, and used to inform clinical and policy decisions. For over 50 years, problems of incomplete and poor reporting of research have been widely documented across health and medical research. Unusable research reports contribute to avoidable research waste through the inability to appraise and synthesise research and can detrimentally impact patient care through incorrect implementation of research findings. Because of this, complete and transparent reporting of research is a researcher’s moral and ethical responsibility to maximise the usefulness and positive impact of their research. Our objective in this article is to provide an overview of reporting guidelines and other key tools available to increase transparent reporting and to outline relevant challenges and potential solutions to their use by research stakeholders.</p

Supplementary Tables from Estimating the effect of COVID-19 on trial design characteristics: a registered report

There have been reports of poor-quality research during the COVID-19 pandemic. This registered report assessed design characteristics of registered clinical trials for COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 trials to empirically explore the design of clinical research during a pandemic and how it compares to research conducted in non-pandemic times. We did a retrospective cohort study with a 1 : 1 ratio of interventional COVID-19 registrations to non-COVID-19 registrations, with four trial design outcomes: use of control arm, randomization, blinding and prospective registration. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio of investigating COVID-19 versus not COVID-19 and estimate direct and total effects of investigating COVID-19 for each outcome. The primary analysis showed a positive direct and total effect of COVID-19 on the use of control arms and randomization. It showed a negative direct effect of COVID-19 on blinding but no evidence of a total effect. There was no evidence of an effect on prospective registration. Taken together with secondary and sensitivity analyses, our findings are inconclusive but point towards a higher prevalence of key design characteristics in COVID-19 trials versus controls. The findings do not support much existing COVID-19 research quality literature, which generally suggests that COVID-19 led to a reduction in quality. Limitations included some data quality issues, minor deviations from the pre-registered plan and the fact that trial registrations were analysed which may not accurately reflect study design and conduct. Following in-principle acceptance, the approved stage 1 version of this manuscript was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/5YAEB. This pre-registration was performed prior to data analysis

Additional file 1: of Mechanisms of implementing public health interventions: a pooled causal mediation analysis of randomised trials

Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment. (DOCX 110 kb

Additional file 3: of Mechanisms of implementing public health interventions: a pooled causal mediation analysis of randomised trials

Sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation to replace missing values. (DOCX 17 kb

Additional file 4: of Mechanisms of implementing public health interventions: a pooled causal mediation analysis of randomised trials

Sensitivity analysis using transformed TDF variables. (DOCX 60 kb

Additional file 2: of Mechanisms of implementing public health interventions: a pooled causal mediation analysis of randomised trials

School survey questions and modified questions. (DOCX 35 kb

Open science and conflict of interest policies of medical and health sciences journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A repeat cross-sectional study

Objectives To audit the transparent and open science standards ofhealth and medical sciences journal policies and explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design  Repeat cross-sectional study.  Setting 19 journals listed in Google Scholar’s Top Publications for health and medical sciences.  Participants Blood, Cell, Circulation, European Heart Journal, Gastroenterology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Nature Genetics, Nature Medicine, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, PLoS ONE, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science Translational Medicine, The British Medical Journal, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, The Lancet Oncology, and The New England Journal of Medicine  Main outcome measures We used the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guideline and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements for disclosing conflicts of interest (COIs) to evaluate journals standards.  Results TOP scores slightly improved during the COVID-19 pandemic, from a median of 5 (IQR: 2–12.5) out of a possible  24 points in February 2020 to 7 (IQR: 4–12) in May 2021, but overall, scores were very low at both time points. Journal policies scored highest for their adherence to data transparency and scored lowest for preregistration of study protocols and analysis plans and the submission of replication studies. Most journals fulfilled all ICMJE provisions for reporting COIs before (84%; n = 16) and during (95%; n = 18) the COVID-19 pandemic.  Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of practising open science. However, requirements for open science practices in audited policies were overall low, which may impede progress in health and medical research. As key stakeholders in disseminating research, journals should promote a research culture of greater transparency and more robust open science practices.  </p

Feasibility of an audit and feedback intervention to facilitate journal policy change towards greater promotion of transparency and openness in sports science research

Objectives: To evaluate (1) the feasibility of an audit-feedback intervention to facilitate sports science journal policy  change, (2) the reliability of the Transparency of Research Underpinning Social Intervention Tiers (TRUST) policy  evaluation form, and (3) the extent to which policies of sports science journals support transparent and open research  practices. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, audit-feedback, feasibility study of transparency and openness standards  of the top 38 sports science journals by impact factor. The TRUST form was used to evaluate journal policies support  for transparent and open research practices. Feedback was provided to journal editors in the format of a tailored let‑ ter. Inter-rater reliability and agreement of the TRUST form was assessed using intraclass correlation coefcients and  the standard error of measurement, respectively. Time-based criteria, fdelity of intervention delivery and qualitative  feedback were used to determine feasibility. Results: The audit-feedback intervention was feasible based on the time taken to rate journals and provide tailored  feedback. The mean (SD) score on the TRUST form (range 0–27) was 2.05 (1.99), refecting low engagement with trans‑ parent and open practices. Inter-rater reliability of the overall score of the TRUST form was moderate [ICC (2,1)=0.68  (95% CI 0.55–0.79)], with standard error of measurement of 1.17. However, some individual items had poor reliability. Conclusion: Policies of the top 38 sports science journals have potential for improved support for transparent and  open research practices. The feasible audit-feedback intervention developed here warrants large-scale evaluation as a  means to facilitate change in journal policies </p