Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36167369›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2022

Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA): a new tool for assessing research quality and reproducibility.

Martin E Héroux, Annie A Butler, Aidan G Cashin, Euan J McCaughey, Andrew J Affleck, Michael A Green, Andrew Cartwright, Matthew Jones, Kim M Kiely, Kimberley S van Schooten and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

13 authors.

Martin E Héroux *Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3354-7104
Annie A Butler *Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Aidan G CashinNeuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4190-7912
Euan J McCaugheyNeuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew J AffleckNeuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael A GreenNeuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew CartwrightNeuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Matthew JonesUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kim M KielyNeuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kimberley S van SchootenNeuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jasmine C MenantNeuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Michael WewegeNeuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Simon C GandeviaNeuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia s.gandevia@neura.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research must be well designed, properly conducted and clearly and transparently reported. Our independent medical research institute wanted a simple, generic tool to assess the quality of the research conducted by its researchers, with the goal of identifying areas that could be improved through targeted educational activities. Unfortunately, none was available, thus we devised our own. Here, we report development of the Quality Output Checklist and Content Assessment (QuOCCA), and its application to publications from our institute's scientists. Following consensus meetings and external review by statistical and methodological experts, 11 items were selected for the final version of the QuOCCA: research transparency (items 1-3), research design and analysis (items 4-6) and research reporting practices (items 7-11). Five pairs of raters assessed all 231 articles published in 2017 and 221 in 2018 by researchers at our institute. Overall, the results were similar between years and revealed limited engagement with several recommended practices highlighted in the QuOCCA. These results will be useful to guide educational initiatives and their effectiveness. The QuOCCA is brief and focuses on broadly applicable and relevant concepts to open, high-quality, reproducible and well-reported science. Thus, the QuOCCA could be used by other biomedical institutions and individual researchers to evaluate research publications, assess changes in research practice over time and guide the discussion about high-quality, open science. Given its generic nature, the QuOCCA may also be useful in other research disciplines.

Indexed as

ChecklistResearch ReportAcademies and InstitutesHumansReproducibility of Resultseducation & training (see medical education & training)medical education & trainingprotocols & guidelinesstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID36167369
PMCPMC9516158

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.