ArticleJournal of multimorbidity and comorbidity
Development of reporting guidelines for multiple long-term condition research.
Article in Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidity. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Incomplete and inconsistent reporting amongst research studies in people with Multiple Long-Term Conditions (MLTC) hinders the comprehensive evaluation, synthesis, and interpretation of study findings for application by clinicians, researchers, patients and policymakers. This limitation leads to heterogeneous findings, duplication of work and restricts the practical application of research outcomes in clinical settings, public health strategies, and policymaking. Given the high prevalence and complexity of MLTC, there is a pressing need for standardised guidelines to promote clarity, consistency, and comprehensiveness in study reporting. Such guidelines can enhance transparency and reproducibility, thereby increasing the impact of research on healthcare decisions and policy development. Methods: We followed a four-stage process of guidelines development: a review of MLTC reporting practices; a workshop with diverse stakeholders to identify and refine items for inclusion; a prioritisation consensus exercise to agree on key items; and pilot-testing to refine interpretation and usability of the guidelines. Results: This work has produced the first set of reporting guidelines addressing the need for standardised reporting in MLTC research. Application of these guidelines has the potential to improve research clarity and reproducibility, enabling better comparisons across studies and shared learning. Improved reporting standards will also facilitate the translation of research findings into effective healthcare strategies and policies, contributing to better health outcomes for MLTC patients. Conclusion: These initial guidelines offer a structured approach to improving the reporting quality of MLTC research. Future evaluations will assess its impact on research transparency and real-world application.
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.