ArticleIndian journal of palliative care
Improving Palliative Care Research Reporting: A Guide to Reporting Guidelines.
Article in Indian journal of palliative care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improving the quality of research reporting is crucial for addressing current challenges in palliative care, with academic journals playing a crucial role in promoting clear and comprehensive reporting through structured guidelines. These guidelines, such as Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and evaluation, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Case Reports (CARE) guidelines, transparent reporting of evaluations with nonrandomized designs (TREND), transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD), meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) Checklist, methods of researching end-of-life care Statement, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence 2.0, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials (SPIRIT), template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research and Standards for Qualitative Research, are instrumental in ensuring transparency by furnishing essential details for comprehending, replicating and applying research findings in clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. The Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research (EQUATOR) network champions trustworthy health research literature globally by advocating for transparent and accurate reporting, thereby enhancing the reliability and utility of research outcomes research outcomes.
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.