ArticleBMJ open2012
Evaluating the impact and use of Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guidelines.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Research Synthesis, HIV Prevention Response, and Public Health: CDC's HIV/AIDS Prevention Research Synthesis Project.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)Pooled it
- Effects of an African Circle Dance Programme on Internally Displaced Persons with Depressive Symptoms: A Quasi-Experimental Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- Quasi-experimental studies in theJournal of Korean biological nursing science · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Diagnostic Recommendations Embedded in Medication Alerts: Prospective Single-Arm Interventional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Situational leadership theory in nursing management: a scoping review.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- An In Vitro Pilot Study Comparing the Novel HemoClear Gravity-Driven Microfiltration Cell Salvage System with the Conventional Centrifugal XTRA™ Autotransfusion Device.Anesthesiology research and practice · 2020Article
- Different Strokes for Different Folks? Contrasting Approaches to Cultural Adaptation of Parenting Interventions.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2017Article
- What affects authors' and editors' use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews.PloS one · 2015Article
- Impact of the transparent reporting of evaluations with nonrandomized designs reporting guideline: ten years on.American journal of public health · 2014Article
- Quality of randomised controlled trials in medical education reported between 2012 and 2013: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2014Article
- Effects of Nurse and Care Worker-led Foot-Care Program on Older People's Foot Conditions: Before and After Intervention Study.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate and full reporting of evaluation of interventions in health research is needed for evidence synthesis and informed decision-making. Evidence suggests that biases and incomplete reporting affect the assessment of study validity and the ability to include this data in secondary research. The Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was developed to improve the transparency and accuracy of the reporting of behavioural and public health evaluations with non-randomised designs. Evaluations of reporting guidelines have shown that they can be effective in improving reporting completeness. Although TREND occupies a niche within reporting guidelines, and despite it being 8 years since publication, no study yet has assessed its impact on reporting completeness or investigated what factors affect its use by authors and journal editors. This protocol describes two studies that aim to redress this. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Study 1 will use an observational design to examine the uptake and use of TREND by authors, and by journals in their instructions to authors. A comparison of reporting completeness and study quality of papers that do and do not use TREND to inform reporting will be made. Study 2 will use a cross-sectional survey to investigate what factors inhibit or facilitate authors' and journal editors' use of TREND. Semistructured interviews will also be conducted with a subset of authors and editors to explore findings from study 1 and the surveys in greater depth. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: These studies will generate evidence of how implementation and dissemination of the TREND guideline has affected reporting completeness in studies with experimental, non-randomised designs within behavioural and public health research. The project has received ethics approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth.
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.