ArticleBMC medicine2015
A tool to make reporting checklists work.
Article in BMC medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial.BMC medicine · 2016Trial
- Protocol for development of a checklist and guideline for transparent reporting of cluster analyses (TRoCA).BMJ open · 2025Article
- The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023Article
- Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software: a crossover randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2019Article
- A Tool to Encourage Minimum Reporting Guideline Uptake for Data Analysis in Metabolomics.Metabolites · 2019Article
- A Program to Enhance Writing Skills for Advanced Practice Nurses.Journal of continuing education in nursing · 2019Article
- From Checklists to Tools: Lowering the Barrier to Better Research Reporting.PLoS medicine · 2015Article
- Preparing and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript.Journal of human reproductive sciencesReview
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the use of reporting guidelines has been demonstrated to increase the completeness and transparency of health research published in journals, there is still a long way to translate their use to the authors at the time where they are needed - during the actual research process and manuscript writing. An online tool for writing methodology section of a randomized controlled trial has been successfully tested in an experimental setting and provides a direction for the development of writing tools for health research. Writing tools should not replace original thinking and the excitement of communicating original discoveries, but make sure that all relevant data are in the manuscript so that research results can be understood, critically evaluated and used in practice. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/221.
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.