Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30310289›Full record

ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2018

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.

Yanling Jin, Nitika Sanger, Ieta Shams, Candice Luo, Hamnah Shahid, Guowei Li, Meha Bhatt, Laura Zielinski, Bianca Bantoto, Mei Wang and 11 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Journal Instructions Are Not Optional: Yet Authors Still Ignore Them.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

21 authors.

Yanling JinDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Nitika SangerDepartment of Medical Science, Medical Sciences Graduate Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Ieta ShamsDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Candice LuoFaculty of Health Sciences, Bachelors of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Hamnah ShahidDepartment of Arts and Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Guowei LiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Meha BhattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Laura ZielinskiDepartment of Neuroscience, McMaster Integrative Neuroscience Discovery and Study, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Bianca BantotoDepartment of Science, Honours Integrated Sciences Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Mei WangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Luciana Pf AbbadeDepartment of Dermatology and Radiotherapy, Botucatu Medical School, Universidade Estadual Paulista, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ikunna NwosuFaculty of Health Sciences, Bachelors of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Alvin LeenusDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Muhammad MaazDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Yaping ChangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Guangwen SunDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Mitchell Ah LevineDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Jonathan D AdachiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.
Zainab SamaanDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, samaanz@mcmaster.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeReporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines. MATERIALS AND

methodsEight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).

resultsAmong the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.

conclusionWe conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Indexed as

adherenceCONSORTguidelinesreview

Identifiers

PMID30310289
PMCPMC6166749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.