Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31076472›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research.

David Blanco, Doug Altman, David Moher, Isabelle Boutron, Jamie J Kirkham, Erik Cobo

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors.

David BlancoStatistics and Operations Research, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Doug AltmanNuffield Department ofOrthopaedics, Rheumatologyand Musculoskeletal Sciences,Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206
Isabelle BoutronCentre d\'épidémiologie Clinique, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
Jamie J KirkhamBiostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Erik CoboStatistics and Operations Research, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far.

designScoping review. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

results109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript.

conclusionsThis scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.

Indexed as

Guideline AdherenceBiomedical ResearchHumansJournal Impact FactorPeriodicals as TopicResearch Reportadherencecompleteness of reportingknowledge synthesisquality of reportingreporting guidelinesscoping review

Identifiers

PMID31076472
PMCPMC6527996

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.