SynthesisJournal of injury & violence research2019
A systematic review of quality of reporting in registered intimate partner violence studies: where can we improve?
Synthesis in Journal of injury & violence research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cultural collectivism, intimate partner violence, and women's mental health: An analysis of data from 151 countries.Frontiers in sociology · 2023Article
- Reporting guideline checklists are not quality evaluation forms: they are guidance for writing.Health science reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReporting quality is paramount when presenting clinical findings in published research to ensure that we have the highest quality of evidence. Poorly reported clinical findings can result in a number of potential pitfalls, including confusion of the methodology used or selective reporting of study results. There are guidelines and checklists that aim to standardize the way in which studies are reported in the literature to ensure transparency. The use of these reporting guidelines may aid in the appropriate reporting of research, which is of increased importance in highly complex fields like intimate partner violence (IPV). The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess the reporting quality of published IPV studies using the CONSORT and STROBE checklists.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of three large study registries for IPV studies. Of the completed studies, we sought full text publications and used reporting checklists to assess the quality of reporting.
resultsOf the 42 randomized controlled trials, the mean score on the CONSORT checklist was 63.5% (23.5/37 items, SD 4.7 items). There were also 12 pilot trials in this systematic review, which scored a mean of 49.3% (19.7/40 items; SD 3.3 items) on the CONSORT extension for pilot trials. We included 12 observational studies which scored a mean of 56.1% (18.5/33 items; SD: 4.1 items).
conclusionsWe identified an opportunity to improve reporting quality by encouraging adherence to reporting guidelines. There should be a particular focus on ensuring that pilot studies report pilot-specific items. All researchers have a responsibility to ensure commitment to high quality reporting to ensure transparency in IPV studies.
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.