ArticleResearch on social work practice2017
Rigor, Transparency, and Reporting Social Science Research: Why Guidelines Don't Have to Kill Your Story.
Article in Research on social work practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reporting randomised trials of physical exercise or training interventions in older adults: the PETIO guideline.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2025Article
- Evolution of Research Reporting Standards: Adapting to the Influence of Artificial Intelligence, Statistics Software, and Writing Tools.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Review
- Self-reported checklists and quality scoring tools in radiomics: a meta-research.European radiology · 2024Article
- The role of provincial health administration in supporting district health management teams in the Democratic Republic of Congo: eliciting an initial programme theory of a realist evaluation.Health research policy and systems · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Dissemination of research is the most challenging aspect of building the evidence base. Despite peer-review, evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of papers leave out details that are necessary to judge bias, consider replication, or initiate meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Reporting guidelines were created to ensure minimally adequate reporting of research and have become increasingly popular since the 1990s. There are over 200 guidelines for authors to assist in reporting a range of study methodologies. Although guidelines are freely available, they are underutilized and there is criticism regarding assumptions about methodologies targeted by guidelines. As journal editors lean into endorsements, social work authors may benefit from considering guidelines appropriate for their work. This paper explores pros and cons of guideline use by authors and journals and presents some suggestions for the field of social work, including assessment of whether profession-specific reporting guidelines are needed, and cautions regarding limitations.
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.