ReviewBritish journal of cancer2018
Reporting guidelines for oncology research: helping to maximise the impact of your research.
Review in British journal of cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sex and gender considerations in reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review.Biology of sex differences · 2021Pooled it
- Methodological study protocol for The European Atlas of clinical trials in cancer and haematology.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Comprehensive Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (CCQR): Reporting Guideline for Global Health Qualitative Research Methods.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- Practical Tools and Guidelines for Young Oncologists From Resource-Limited Settings to Publish Excellence and Advance Their Career.JCO global oncology · 2021Article
- Reporting guideline checklists are not quality evaluation forms: they are guidance for writing.Health science reports · 2020Article
- Proposed minimum information guideline for kidney disease-research and clinical data reporting: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- EQUATOR-Oncology: reducing the latitude of cancer trial design and reporting.British journal of cancer · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many reports of health research omit important information needed to assess their methodological robustness and clinical relevance. Without clear and complete reporting, it is not possible to identify flaws or biases, reproduce successful interventions, or use the findings in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/) promotes responsible reporting and the use of reporting guidelines to improve the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of health research. EQUATOR supports researchers by providing online resources and training. EQUATOR Oncology, a project funded by Cancer Research UK, aims to support cancer researchers reporting their research through the provision of online resources. In this article, our objective is to highlight reporting issues related to oncology research publications and to introduce reporting guidelines that are designed to aid high-quality reporting. We describe generic reporting guidelines for the main study types, and explain how these guidelines should and should not be used. We also describe 37 oncology-specific reporting guidelines, covering different clinical areas (e.g., haematology or urology) and sections of the report (e.g., methods or study characteristics); most of these are little-used. We also provide some background information on EQUATOR Oncology, which focuses on addressing the reporting needs of the oncology research community.
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.