State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol

A Bibliometric Analysis on Adherence to Reporting Standards for Endovascular Treatment of Chronic Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

The treatment of chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) involves a broad spectrum of therapies including many new and emerging techniques. To standardize the results of studies examining this pathology and to allow critical analysis and comparison between studies, the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) recommended reporting standard guidelines for the endovascular management of CLTI in 2016. Research studies that do not adhere to complete reporting standards are often more ambiguous in impact and external validity, leading to bias and misinformation that has potentially damaging effects on clinical decision-making. We thus sought to examine adherence to and factors associated with noncompliance with these recommended guidelines.

METHODS

A literature database search was conducted to include all clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and retrospective comparative studies written in English examining the endovascular treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD)/CLTI from January 2020 to August 2022. Systematic reviews, case reports, and meta-analysis were excluded. The manuscripts were reviewed for adherence with the SVS guidelines (overall and by guideline subcategories based on demographics, treatment methods, and outcomes), and factors associated with this adherence were determined. These data were used to calculate descriptive and comparative statistics.

RESULTS

Fifty-four manuscripts were identified from this time frame. On average, articles reviewed reported on 42.0% of the SVS reporting standards (range, 25.0-65.2%, Fig 1) with 74.1% of articles (n = 40) not adhering to at least 50.0% of the standards. Manuscripts most completely followed guidelines regarding "patient factors" and were least likely to demonstrate adherence to the description of CLTI and study complications. Within the guideline subcategories, complete adherence to guidelines was not demonstrated in any manuscript in stent trials, disease outcome measures, technical outcome measures, patient factors and critical limb ischemia description, and complete adherence rates within the other subcategories was low (range, 5.6-18.6%). Studies conducted within the United States and those with industry sponsorship were more likely to adhere to >50% of the reporting standards (P < 0.05). Journal impact factor, year of publication, and number of authors had no correlation to the percent adherence to guidelines in specific categories or adherence overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to reporting standard guidelines for endovascular treatment of lower extremity PAD specifically outlined by the SVS is suboptimal regardless of the quality of the journal the research is published in. Increasing adherence to reporting standards to provide a framework for comparison of studies across techniques used should be prioritized by authors, journal editors, and vascular societies.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update

PURPOSE

Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).

RESULTS

Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Evidence of the factors that influence the utilisation of Kangaroo Mother Care by parents with low-birth-weight infants in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs): a scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 emphasises on reducing neonatal deaths caused by low birth weight (LBW) complications by the implementation and utilisation of Kangaroo Mother Care (KMC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite the empirical evidence of KMC optimising low-birth-weight infants' (LBWIs') survival, its advantages and the LMICs implementing the service, studies have shown that LBW infant deaths occurring in LMICs are largely contributing to global child mortality. The aim of this scoping review is to map out the literature on barriers, challenges and facilitators of KMC utilisation by parents with LBWIs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review will use Endnote X7 reference management software to manage articles. The review search strategy will use SCIELO and LILACS databases. Other databases will be used via EBSCOHost search engine and these are Academic search complete, CINAHL with full text, Education source, Health source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Medline with full text and Medline. We will also use Google Scholar, JSTOR, Open grey search engines and reference lists. A two-phase search mapping out process will be done. In phase 1, one reviewer will perform the title screening and removal of duplicates. Two reviewers will do a parallel abstract screening according to eligibility criteria. Phase 2 will involve the reading of full articles and exclusion of articles, in accordance with the eligibility criteria. Data extraction from the articles will be done by two reviewers independently and parallel to the data extraction form. The data quality assessment of the eligible studies will be done using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The extraction of the synthesised results and thematic content analysis of the studies will be done by NVIVO version 10.

DISCUSSION

We expect to find studies on barriers, challenges and facilitating factors of KMC utilisation by parents with LBWIs in LMICs. The review outcomes will guide future research and practice and inform policy. The findings will be disseminated in print, electronic and conference presentations related to maternal child and neonatal health.

A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research

BACKGROUND

Prospective study protocols and registrations can play a significant role in reducing incomplete or selective reporting of primary biomedical research, because they are pre-specified blueprints which are available for the evaluation of, and comparison with, full reports. However, inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports have been frequently documented. In this systematic review, which forms part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical, we aimed to survey the existing evidence of inconsistencies between protocols or registrations (i.e., what was planned to be done and/or what was actually done) and full reports (i.e., what was reported in the literature); this was based on findings from systematic reviews and surveys in the literature.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched to identify eligible surveys and systematic reviews. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency (expressed as a percentage, with higher percentages indicating greater inconsistency) between protocols or registration and full reports. We summarized the findings from the included systematic reviews and surveys qualitatively.

RESULTS

There were 37 studies (33 surveys and 4 systematic reviews) included in our analyses. Most studies (n = 36) compared protocols or registrations with full reports in clinical trials, while a single survey focused on primary studies of clinical trials and observational research. High inconsistency levels were found in outcome reporting (ranging from 14% to 100%), subgroup reporting (from 12% to 100%), statistical analyses (from 9% to 47%), and other measure comparisons. Some factors, such as outcomes with significant results, sponsorship, type of outcome and disease speciality were reported to be significantly related to inconsistent reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that inconsistent reporting between protocols or registrations and full reports of primary biomedical research is frequent, prevalent and suboptimal. We also identified methodological issues such as the need for consensus on measuring inconsistency across sources for trial reports, and more studies evaluating transparency and reproducibility in reporting all aspects of study design and analysis. A joint effort involving authors, journals, sponsors, regulators and research ethics committees is required to solve this problem.

A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research

BACKGROUND

Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.