Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34657590›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2021

GoodReports: developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines.

Caroline Struthers, James Harwood, Jennifer Anne de Beyer, Paula Dhiman, Patricia Logullo, Michael Schlüssel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Strategies to improve the quality of reporting nursing research.Korean journal of women health nursing · 2022
    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.

Caroline StruthersUK EQUATOR Centre, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. caroline.struthers@csm.ox.ac.uk.
James HarwoodUK EQUATOR Centre, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jennifer Anne de BeyerUK EQUATOR Centre, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Paula DhimanUK EQUATOR Centre, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Patricia LogulloUK EQUATOR Centre, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Michael SchlüsselUK EQUATOR Centre, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27294Medical Research Council MR/J00488X/1Medical Research Council MR/S036741/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTh EQUATOR Network improves the quality and transparency in health research, primarily by promoting awareness and use of reporting guidelines. In 2018, the UK EQUATOR Centre launched GoodReports.org , a website that helps authors find and use reporting guidelines. This paper describes the tool's development so far. We describe user experience and behaviour of using GoodReports.org both inside and outside a journal manuscript submission process. We intend to use our findings to inform future development and testing of the tool.

methodsWe conducted a survey to collect data on user experience of the GoodReports website. We cross-checked a random sample of 100 manuscripts submitted to a partner journal to describe the level of agreement between the tool's checklist recommendation and what we would have recommended. We compared the proportion of authors submitting a completed reporting checklist alongside their manuscripts between groups exposed or not exposed to the GoodReports tool. We also conducted a study comparing completeness of reporting of manuscript text before an author received a reporting guideline recommendation from GoodReports.org with the completeness of the text subsequently submitted to a partner journal.

resultsSeventy percent (423/599) of survey respondents rated GoodReports 8 or more out of 10 for usefulness, and 74% (198/267) said they had made changes to their manuscript after using the website. We agreed with the GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation in 84% (72/86) of cases. Of authors who completed the guideline finder questionnaire, 14% (10/69) failed to submit a completed checklist compared to 30% (41/136) who did not use the tool. Of the 69 authors who received a GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation, 20 manuscript pairs could be reviewed before and after use of GoodReports. Five included more information in their methods section after exposure to GoodReports. On average, authors reported 57% of necessary reporting items before completing a checklist on GoodReports.org and 60% after.

conclusionThe data suggest that reporting guidance is needed early in the writing process, not at submission stage. We are developing GoodReports by adding more reporting guidelines and by creating editable article templates. We will test whether GoodReports users write more complete study reports in a randomised trial targeting researchers starting to write health research articles.

Indexed as

ChecklistResearch DesignBehavior TherapyHumansWritingEducationReporting guidelinesReproducibilitySoftwareStandards

Identifiers

PMID34657590
PMCPMC8520646

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.