ArticleAmerican journal of public health2014
Impact of the transparent reporting of evaluations with nonrandomized designs reporting guideline: ten years on.
Article in American journal of public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of Physical Exercise on the Stereotyped Behavior of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Pooled it
- Reporting quality of music intervention research in healthcare: A systematic review.Complementary therapies in medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of icotinib in treating non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic evaluation and meta-analysis based on 15 studies.Oncotarget · 2016Pooled 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
- Prospective Clinical Study on the Accuracy of Static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery in Patients With Distal Free-End Implants. Conventional Versus CAD-CAM Surgical Guides.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Trial
- Effectiveness of a Gamified Educational Intervention on Palliative Care Knowledge Among Nursing Students: A Single-Group Pre-Post Intervention Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Quasi-experimental studies in theJournal of Korean biological nursing science · 2025Review
- Open science interventions to improve reproducibility and replicability of research: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Putting music to trial: Consensus on key methodological challenges investigating music-based rehabilitation.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2022Review
- Improving the Physical Health of Psychiatric Hospital Residents: An Evaluation of an Obesity Education Program for Mental Health Professionals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.Nature communications · 2021Article
- State behavioral health agency website references to evidence-based program registers.Evaluation and program planning · 2021Article
- Statistical Accuracy in Rheumatology Research.Mediterranean journal of rheumatology · 2019Review
- A Distance-Learning Course to Improve Drug-Dispensing Behaviors Among Brazilian Community Pharmacists.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2019Article
- Natural Experiments: An Overview of Methods, Approaches, and Contributions to Public Health Intervention Research.Annual review of public health · 2017Review
- What affects authors' and editors' use of reporting guidelines? Findings from an online survey and qualitative interviews.PloS one · 2015Article
- Statistical methods and errors in family medicine articles between 2010 and 2014-Suez Canal University, Egypt: A cross-sectional study.Journal of family medicine and primary careArticle
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
objectivesWe assessed how the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was used by authors and journal editors in journals' instructions to authors. We also evaluated its impact on reporting completeness and study quality.
methodsWe extracted data from publications that cited TREND on how TREND was used in those reports; we also extracted information on journals' instructions to authors. We then undertook a case-control study of relevant publications to evaluate the impact of using TREND.
resultsBetween 2004 and 2013, TREND was cited 412 times, but it was only evidently applied to study reports 47 times. TREND was specifically mentioned 14 times in the sample of 61 instructions to authors. Some evidence suggested that use of TREND was associated with more comprehensive reporting and higher study quality ratings.
conclusionsTREND appeared to be underutilized by authors and journal editors despite its potential application and benefits. We found evidence that suggested that using TREND could contribute to more transparent and complete study reports. Even when authors reported using TREND, reporting completeness was still suboptimal.
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.