Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28363989›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based mental health2017

Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews.

Brian Hutton, Dianna Wolfe, David Moher, Larissa Shamseer

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based mental health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Brian HuttonOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Dianna WolfeOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
David MoherOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Larissa ShamseerOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Ottawa Hospital · CAOttawa Hospital Research Institute

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveResearch waste has received considerable attention from the biomedical community. One noteworthy contributor is incomplete reporting in research publications. When detailing statistical methods and results, ensuring analytic methods and findings are completely documented improves transparency. For publications describing randomised trials and systematic reviews, guidelines have been developed to facilitate complete reporting. This overview summarises aspects of statistical reporting in trials and systematic reviews of health interventions.

methodsA narrative approach to summarise features regarding statistical methods and findings from reporting guidelines for trials and reviews was taken. We aim to enhance familiarity of statistical details that should be reported in biomedical research among statisticians and their collaborators.

resultsWe summarise statistical reporting considerations for trials and systematic reviews from guidance documents including the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for reporting of trials, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Statement for trial protocols, the Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature (SAMPL) Guidelines for statistical reporting principles, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement for systematic reviews and PRISMA for Protocols (PRISMA-P). Considerations regarding sharing of study data and statistical code are also addressed.

conclusionsReporting guidelines provide researchers with minimum criteria for reporting. If followed, they can enhance research transparency and contribute improve quality of biomedical publications. Authors should employ these tools for planning and reporting of their research.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchGuidelines as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReview Literature as TopicHumansSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID28363989
PMCPMC10688516
OpenAlexW2599275779

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.