Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33004055›Full record

ArticleTrials2020

Research transparency promotion by surgical journals publishing randomised controlled trials: a survey.

N Lombard, A Gasmi, L Sulpice, K Boudjema, F Naudet, D Bergeat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.

N LombardDepartment of HPB and Digestive Surgery, CHU Rennes, Pontchaillou Hospital, Rennes, France.
A GasmiDepartment of HPB and Digestive Surgery, CHU Rennes, Pontchaillou Hospital, Rennes, France.
L SulpiceDepartment of HPB and Digestive Surgery, CHU Rennes, Pontchaillou Hospital, Rennes, France.
K BoudjemaDepartment of HPB and Digestive Surgery, CHU Rennes, Pontchaillou Hospital, Rennes, France.
F NaudetRennes 1 University, Rennes, France.
D BergeatDepartment of HPB and Digestive Surgery, CHU Rennes, Pontchaillou Hospital, Rennes, France. damien.bergeat@chu-rennes.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7743-1146

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe surgical journals' position statements on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe key features of their research transparency promotion.

methodsOnly "SURGICAL" journals with an impact factor higher than 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were included, if there were explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) or if they had published randomised controlled trial (RCT) between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy included in the instructions for authors. Data-sharing policies were grouped into 3 categories, inclusion of data-sharing policy mandatory, optional, or not available. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a "prospective registration of clinical trials requirement policy", a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement, and a specific reference to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT for RCT.

resultsAmong the 87 surgical journals identified, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and the remaining 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR = 2.48-3.77], and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR = 5-20.75]. The OIA of four journals (5%) stated that the inclusion of a data-sharing statement was mandatory, optional in 45% (n = 37), and not included in 50% (n = 41). No association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (mandatory or optional). A "prospective registration of clinical trials requirement" was associated with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines.

conclusionResearch transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.

Indexed as

Periodicals as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicConflict of InterestHumansInformation DisseminationPublishingSurveys and QuestionnairesConflict of interestCONSORT statementData sharingRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID33004055
PMCPMC7528240

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.