Pre-conference workshop: Training for better research reporting Freiburg, October 2012 Responsibilities of editors and reviewers Ana Marušić, MD, PhD Chair, Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

Implementing reporting standards – before and after CONSORT adopters vs. Non-adopters had significantly better reporting of method of sequence generation (risk ratio [RR], 1.67;95% CI, 1.19–2.33) allocation concealment (RR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.37–2.00) overall number of CONSORT items (standardised mean difference, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.46–1.19)

Implementing reporting standards – before and after Can OS, Yilmaz AA, Hasdogan M, Alkaya F, Turhan SC, Can MF, Alanoglu Z. Has the quality of abstracts for randomised controlled trials improved since the release of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guideline for abstract reporting? A survey of four high-profile anaesthesia journals. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011 Jul;28(7): abstracts in 4 journals From pre-CONSORT to post-CONSORT guidelines for abstract reporting, there were significant improvements in correctly identifying blinding ( %) and harmful effects ( %). Despite some promising improvements and inter-journal differences, the overall quality of RCT abstracts and adherence to the CONSORT checklist for abstracts remains poor.

Implementing reporting standards – single country Dasí F, Navarro-García MM, Jiménez-Heredia M, Magraner J, Viña JR, Pallardó FV, Cervantes A, Morcillo E. Evaluation of the quality of publications on randomized clinical trials using the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement guidelines in a Spanish tertiary hospital. J Clin Pharmacol Jul;52(7): RCTs published between 2002 and 2008 There was a marked increase in the number of articles and the quality of the journals that published the CTs over time. The title, abstract, introduction, and discussion sections received the highest CONSORT scores and need little improvement. Poor reporting of methodological details and discussion on limitations and strengths were observed.

Augestad KM, Berntsen G, Lassen K, Bellika JG, Wootton R, Lindsetmo RO; Study Group of Research Quality in Medical Informatics and Decision Support (SQUID). Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in medical informatics: a systematic review of CONSORT adherence in RCTs on clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc Jan-Feb;19(1): RCTs on CDS The mean CONSORT score was (95% CI 27.0 to 34.5), median score 32, range Fourteen trials (43%) did not clearly define the study objective, and 11 studies (34%) did not include a sample size calculation. Outcome measures were adequately identified and defined in 23 (71%) trials; adverse events or side effects were not reported in 20 trials (62%). Implementing reporting standards – health fields

Asher GN, Motsinger-Reif AA, Jonas DE, Viera AJ. Quality of reporting on randomised controlled trials of auriculotherapy for pain. Acupunct Med Jun;29(2): studies – implementation of CONSORT and STRICTA 11 studies (74%) reported STRICTA items and eight studies (54%) reported CONSORT items. Implementing reporting standards – health fields

Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I. Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ Jun 22;344:e abstracts from 5 journals w or w/o CONSORT impolementation policy. Journals with an active policy had higher mean number of items reported (increase of 1.50 items; P=0.0037). At 23 months after publication of the guidelines, the mean number of items reported per abstract for the primary outcome was 5.41 of nine items, a 53% increase compared with the expected level estimated on the basis of pre-intervention trends. Implementing reporting standards – journals

Implementing reporting standards - journals

Implementing reporting standards: experience from a single journal

J Pediat Surg – reporting guideline

Results Mean global composite scores increased from 72.2 pre- Guidelines to 80.1 post-Guidelines (P<0.0001). Scores increased in each subcategory: Methods, 71.9 to 78.6 (P<0.0001) Results, 77.2 to 83.0 (P=0.002) Post-Guidelines implementation scores have increased over time.

Moher D, Weeks L, Ocampo M, Seely D, Sampson M, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Miller D, Simera I, Grimshaw J, Hoey J. Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol Jul;64(7): reporting guidelines for health research Reporting-guideline developers provided little information about the guideline development process. Developers of 50 (62%) reporting guidelines encouraged endorsement, most commonly by including guidelines in journal instructions to authors (n=18; 36%). Reporting-guideline developers need to endeavor to maximize the quality of their product. Standards on reporting standards

Checklists? sulako.blogspot.com How to implement reporting guidelines in your journal: guidance from EQUATOR Yes, but who will do the checking?