ReviewBMC medicine2010
Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network.
Review in BMC medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 231 papers, 28 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
231 citing papers in PubMed, 28 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of Technology-Based Interventions on the Reduction of Loneliness: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- The Application of Classic Grounded Theory in Nursing Studies: A Qualitative Systematic Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating methodological quality of prognostic prediction models on patient-reported outcome measurements after total hip and total knee arthroplasty : a systematic review.Bone & joint open · 2026Pooled it
- Acute myocardial infarction treatment delay in South Asia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Future cardiology · 2025Pooled it
- Large Language Model Analysis of Reporting Quality of Randomized Clinical Trial Articles: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Incidence and mortality of acute aflatoxicosis: A systematic review.Environment international · 2025Pooled it
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Intracranial multimodal monitoring in neurocritical care (Neurocore-iMMM): an open, decentralized consensus.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Guideline
- How completely are randomized controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions following concussion reported? A systematic review.Journal of sport and health science · 2024Pooled it
- Developing a Comprehensive List of Criteria to Evaluate the Characteristics and Quality of eHealth Smartphone Apps: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Pooled it
- The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- Quantitative Methods Used to Evaluate Impact of Combination HIV Prevention Intervention: A Methodological Systematic Review.AIDS and behavior · 2023Pooled it
- Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Guideline
- State of the Art of Patient-reported Outcomes in Acromegaly or GH Deficiency: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2022Pooled it
- Tivozanib in renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review of the evidence and its dissemination in the scientific literature.BMC cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy of non-surgical management and functional outcomes of partial ACL tears. A systematic review of randomised trials.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review.Biology of sex differences · 2021Pooled it
- A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS).Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Guideline
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2021Guideline
171 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
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.The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative set up to advance high quality reporting of health research studies; it promotes good reporting practices including the wider implementation of reporting guidelines. EQUATOR provides free online resources http://www.equator-network.org supported by education and training activities and assists in the development of robust reporting guidelines. This paper outlines EQUATOR's goals and activities and offers suggestions for organizations and individuals involved in health research on how to strengthen research reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.