Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 - PubMed

PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs …

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 - PubMed

PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs …

lede - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

Reporting and presentation of statistical analyses: instructions for authors of health sciences journals based in South Africa

Background: Statistical analyses are a key component of quantitative research in health sciences. Objectives: To review the instructions for authors on reporting and presentation of statistical methods by all health sciences journals based in South Africa. Methods: Health sciences journals based in South Africa that publish original quanti-tative research articles were identified using three sources, namely the list of accred-ited South African journals compiled by the South African Department of Higher Education and Training in 2022, relevant journals covered in Scopus, and web pages of major health sciences publishers in South Africa. The list was cross-checked against the listing of journals in Sabinet, an online database covering South Africa, under the category ‘Collection: Medicine and Health’. The instructions for authors given by the journals were accessed through their websites. The form for recording data was based on items listed in the ‘Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature’ (SAMPL) guidelines. Results: All except one of the 52 journals could be located online. Of the 51, 13 (25%) made no mention of statistics in their instructions, and 11 (22%) made only a gen-eral statement regarding statistical content with no further guidance. The statistical item most frequently mentioned was the P value (45% of journals), whereas the rest of the items appeared in the instructions of 20% or fewer journals. Nine journals (18%) referred to the EQUATOR guidelines, mainly CONSORT (10%). Conclusion: Nearly half of the health sciences journals based in South Africa either did not mention statistics at all in their instructions for authors or made only a cur-sory reference to statistics. The study thus emphasizes that these journals, in their instructions for authors, need to cover in greater detail the reporting and presenta-tion of statistical methods in articles reporting quantitative research.

The SPIRIT Checklist—lessons from the experience of SPIRIT protocol editors - Trials

Crystal clear RCT protocols are of paramount importance. The reader needs to easily understand the trial methodology and know what is pre-planned. They need to know there are procedures in place if there are, for instance, protocol breaches and protocol amendments are required, there is loss to follow-up and missing data, and how solicited and spontaneous reported adverse events are dealt with. This plan is important for the trial and for the results that will be published when the data is analysed. After all, individuals have consented to participate in these trials, and their time and their well-being matter. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) provides guidance to structure RCT protocols and ensures all essential information is included. But sadly, not all trialists follow the guidance, and sometimes, the information is misunderstood. Using experience peer-reviewing for Trials over the last 2 years, we have prepared information to assist authors, peer reviewers, editors, and other current and future SPIRIT protocol editors to use the SPIRIT guidance and understand its importance.

Who writes what? The academic age patterns of review genres in biomedicine

Read now "Who writes what? The academic age patterns of review genres in biomedicine" publication in Orvium

Evaluation of reporting quality of cohort studies using real-world data based on RECORD: systematic review - BMC Medical Research Methodology

Objective Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) have been paid more and more attention in recent years. We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of cohort studies using real-world data (RWD) published between 2013 and 2021 and analyze the possible factors. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search in Medline and Embase through the OVID interface for cohort studies published from 2013 to 2021 on April 29, 2022. Studies aimed at comparing the effectiveness or safety of exposure factors in the real-world setting were included. The evaluation was based on the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. Agreement for inclusion and evaluation was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. Pearson chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to analyze the possible factors, including the release of RECORD, journal IFs, and article citations. Bonferroni’s correction was conducted for multiple comparisons. Interrupted time series analysis was performed to display the changes in report quality over time. Results 187 articles were finally included. The mean ± SD of the percentage of adequately reported items in the 187 articles was 44.7 ± 14.3 with a range of 11.1–87%. Of 23 items, the adequate reporting rate of 10 items reached 50%, and the reporting rate of some vital items was inadequate. After Bonferroni’s correction, the reporting of only one item significantly improved after the release of RECORD and there was no significant improvement in the overall report quality. For interrupted time series analysis, there were no significant changes in the slope (p = 0.42) and level (p = 0.12) of adequate reporting rate. The journal IFs and citations were respectively related to 2 areas and the former significantly higher in high-reporting quality articles. Conclusion The endorsement of the RECORD cheklist was generally inadequate in cohort studies using RWD and has not improved in recent years. We encourage researchers to endorse relevant guidelines when utilizing RWD for research.

The SAGER Guidelines - EASE