Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24965222›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014

Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review.

Adrienne Stevens, Larissa Shamseer, Erica Weinstein, Fatemeh Yazdi, Lucy Turner, Justin Thielman, Douglas G Altman, Allison Hirst, John Hoey, Anita Palepu and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

99 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Guideline
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2026
    Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Adrienne StevensCentre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6.
Larissa ShamseerCentre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6 Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, K1H 8M5 Ottawa, Canada.
Erica WeinsteinAlbert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY 10461, USA.
Fatemeh YazdiCentre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6.
Lucy TurnerCentre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6.
Justin ThielmanCentre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6.
Douglas G AltmanCentre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK.
Allison HirstNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.
John HoeyPopulation and Public Health Initiative, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada, K7L 3N6.
Anita PalepuCentre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6Z 1Y9 Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V5Z 1M9.
Kenneth F SchulzInternational Clinical Sciences Support Center, FHI 360, Durham, NC 27713, USA.
David MoherCentre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6 Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, K1H 8M5 Ottawa, Canada dmoher@ohri.ca.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16895Chief Scientist OfficeCIHR KSD-111750Medical Research Council MR/J00488X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name. STUDY SELECTION: English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals). DATA EXTRACTION: Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score.

results101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15,249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations.

conclusionsThe completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicGuideline AdherenceHealth Services ResearchHumansPeriodicals as TopicPublishingResearch Report

Identifiers

PMID24965222
PMCPMC4070413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.