ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2018
Reported use of reporting guidelines among
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2024Article
- Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Models (CREMLS).Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Modeling Studies: Development and Validation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- REMARK guidelines for tumour biomarker study reporting: a remarkable history.British journal of cancer · 2023Review
- GoodReports: developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Reporting guideline checklists are not quality evaluation forms: they are guidance for writing.Health science reports · 2020Article
- Improving the transparency and integrity of scientific reports on health. New instructions for authors!Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2019Article
- Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers.BMC medicine · 2018Article
- Mind the gap: A cross-sectional analysis of large language model guidance in emergency medicine journals.Digital healthArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAssociations were examined between author-reported uses of reporting guidelines to prepare
methodsAt submission, authors were asked if they used reporting guidelines to prepare their manuscript and, if so, which one(s). Reviewers rated adherence to reporting guidelines and clarity of presentation. Data were gathered using a customized Editorial Manager Enterprise Analytics Report for submissions with first or final decisions that were submitted between November 1, 2015, and April 30, 2017. Manuscript types that would benefit from the use of reporting guidelines were included. All reviews were included in the analyses. Numerical values were given to each answer (yes, 1; no, 0) or reviewer rating (not applicable, 0; fair, 1; poor, 2; good, 3; very good, 4; and outstanding, 5), and scores were compared using two-sided
resultsOf 2209 submissions included in the analysis, 1144 (51.8%) indicated that at least one reporting guideline was used. The STROBE guidelines were the most common (
conclusionsAmong these
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.