Reporting guidelines for health research: protocol for a cross-sectional analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library

Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration across Scopus-indexed rheumatology journals: a cross-sectional analysis

The purpose of this study was to investigate the instructions for authors of rheumatology journals and analyze their endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Sixty rheumatology journals were selected by a research librarian and an investigator through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. The instructions for authors' subsection of each journal was assessed to determine endorsement of study design-specific reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. Descriptive statistics were calculated using R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio. Of the 58 journals analyzed, 34 (34/58; 59%) mentioned the EQUATOR Network: an online compendium of best practice reporting guidelines. The most commonly mentioned reporting guidelines were CONSORT with 44 journals (44/58; 75%), and PRISMA with 35 journals (35/58; 60%). The least mentioned guidelines were QUOROM with 56 journals not mentioning the guideline (56/58; 97%), and SRQR with 53 journals not mentioning the guideline (53/57, 93%). Clinical trial registration was required by 38 journals (38/58; 66%) and recommended by 8 journals (8/58; 14%). Our study found that endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration within rheumatology journals was suboptimal with great room for improvement. Endorsement of reporting guidelines have shown to not only mitigate bias, but also improve research methodologies. Therefore, we recommend rheumatology journals broadly expand their endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration to improve the quality of evidence they publish.

Quality of reporting for qualitative studies in pediatric urology-A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Qualitative research has gained popularity in pediatric urology due to rich data and insights about quantitative results. To date, there has been no study evaluating the comprehensiveness of the reporting of these studies based on established guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to perform a scoping review of the quality of reporting in recent qualitative studies in pediatric urology based on a predominant checklist, the 21-item Standards of Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) and identify areas for improvement.

STUDY DESIGN

In accordance with the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews, we performed a systematic literature search to identify qualitative studies on pediatric urology topics published from 2015 to 2021. We used clustering technology to eliminate articles with unrelated keywords. Articles not in English and those published prior to 2015 were excluded. Two reviewers performed title/abstract screening and full text review and resolved discrepancies by consensus. We reported the median and interquartile range of total SRQR scores (maximum: 21). SRQR-reported items were summarized; overall proportion of reported items for each article was estimated. Bivariate analyses examined the association between study characteristics and SRQR tertile. Simple linear regression was performed to examine the relationship between year and SRQR score.

RESULTS

Of the 2562 titles/abstracts screened, 26 studies were included. The most common topics were hypospadias and congenital adrenal hyperplasia (Summary Figure). The median total score was 18.0 of 21 possible items (interquartile range: 3). All studies reported an abstract, problem formulation, purpose/context of the study, data collection methods, integration with prior work, limitations, and ethics review board approval. Most (25/26; 96.2%) reported sampling strategy, data analysis, synthesis/interpretation of findings and links to empirical data. Less fulfilled items included: a title identifying the study as qualitative (11/26, 42.3%), qualitative approach & research paradigm (11/26, 42.3%) and researcher characteristics & reflexivity (9/26, 34.6%). There was no association between study characteristics and SRQR score. There was a statistically significant increase in the SRQR score during the study period (β = 1.0, p < 0.0001).

DISCUSSION

Studies fulfilled most SRQR checklist items. There was significant improvement in quality during the study period. Limitations include possible recency bias and exclusion of articles due to inconsistent categorizations in Pub Med.

CONCLUSION

The quality and trajectory of qualitative study reporting in pediatric urology is encouraging. SRQR standards should be implemented by journals to continue improving the robustness and transparency of future qualitative manuscripts in pediatric urology.

Creation of standardized tools to evaluate reporting in health research: Population Reporting Of Gender, Race, Ethnicity & Sex (PROGRES)

Despite increasing diversity in research recruitment, research finding reporting by gender, race, ethnicity, and sex has remained up to the discretion of authors. This study developped and piloted tools to standardize the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop standardized tools for the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. Health research, social epidemiology, sociology, and medical anthropology experts from 11 different universities participated in the Delphi process. The tools were pilot tested on 85 health research manuscripts in top health research journals to determine inter-rater reliability of the tools. The tools each spanned five dimensions for both sex and gender as well as race and ethnicity: Author inclusiveness, Participant inclusiveness, Nomenclature reporting, Descriptive reporting, and Outcomes reporting for each subpopulation. The sex and gender tool had a median score of 6 and a range of 1-15 out of 16 possible points. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the sex and gender tool was 82%. The interrater reliability or average Cohen's Kappa was 0.54 with a standard deviation of 0.33 demonstrating moderate agreement. The race and ethnicity tool had a median score of 1 and a range of 0-15 out of 16 possible points. Race and ethnicity were both reported in only 25.8% of studies evaluated. Most studies that reported race reported only the largest subgroups; White, Black, and Latinx. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the race and ethnicity tool was 84 and average Cohen's Kappa was 0.61 with a standard deviation of 0.38 demonstrating substantial agreement. While the overall dimension scores were low (indicating low inclusivity), the interrater reliability measures indicated moderate to substantial agreement for the respective tools. Efforts in recruitment alone will not provide more inclusive literature without improving reporting.

Evaluating the online impact of reporting guidelines for randomised trial reports and protocols: a cross-sectional web-based data analysis of CONSORT and SPIRIT initiatives

Reporting guidelines are tools to help improve the transparency, completeness, and clarity of published articles in health research. Specifically, the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statements provide evidence-based guidance on what to include in randomised trial articles and protocols to guarantee the efficacy of interventions. These guidelines are subsequently described and discussed in journal articles and used to produce checklists. Determining the online impact (i.e., number and type of links received) of these articles can provide insights into the dissemination of reporting guidelines in broader environments (web-at-large) than simply that of the scientific publications that cite them. To address the technical limitations of link analysis, here the Debug-Validate-Access-Find (DVAF) method is designed and implemented to measure different facets of the guidelines' online impact. A total of 65 articles related to 38 reporting guidelines are taken as a baseline, providing 240,128 URL citations, which are then refined, analysed, and categorised using the DVAF method. A total of 15,582 links to journal articles related to the CONSORT and SPIRIT initiatives were identified. CONSORT 2010 and SPIRIT 2013 were the reporting guidelines that received most links (URL citations) from other online objects (5328 and 2190, respectively). Overall, the online impact obtained is scattered (URL citations are received by different article URL IDs, mainly from link-based DOIs), narrow (limited number of linking domain names, half of articles are linked from fewer than 29 domain names), concentrated (links come from just a few academic publishers, around 60% from publishers), non-reputed (84% of links come from dubious websites and fake domain names) and highly decayed (89% of linking domain names were not accessible at the time of the analysis). In light of these results, it is concluded that the online impact of these guidelines could be improved, and a set of recommendations are proposed to this end.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04542-z.

A Methodological Quality Evaluation of Meta-Analyses on Nursing Home Research: Overview and Suggestions for Future Directions

(1) Background: The nursing home (NH) research field lacks quality reporting about meta-analyses (MAs), and most gradings of MA evidence are biased on analyzing the effectiveness of independent variables in randomized control trials. (2) Objectives: This study aimed to perform a critical methodological review of MAs in the NH research field. (3) Methods: We searched the articles from four databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) until 15th January 2021. We reviewed a total of 41 published review articles in the NH research field. (4) Results: The studies primarily fell into the following categories: medicine (17/41), nursing (7/41), and psychiatry or psychology (6/41); 36.6% of the reviewed studies did not use any validated MA guidelines. The lowest correctly reported PRISMA 2000 guideline item was protocol and registration (14.6%), and more than 50% of articles did not report risk of bias. Moreover, 78.0% of studies did not describe missing reports of effect size formula. (5) Discussion: NH researchers must follow appropriate and updated guidelines for their MAs in order to provide validated reviews, as well as consider statistical issues such as the complexity of interventions, proper grouping, and scientific effect-size calculations to improve the quality of their study. Future quality review studies should investigate more diverse studies.

What would you like to print? Students' opinions on the use of 3D printing technology in medicine

Background

Recent advances in 3D printing technology, and biomaterials are revolutionizing medicine. The beneficiaries of this technology are primarily patients, but also students of medical faculties. Taking into account that not all students have full, direct access to the latest advances in additive technologies, we surveyed their opinion on 3D printing and education in this area. The research aimed to determine what knowledge about the use of 3D printing technology in medicine, do students of medical faculties have.

Methods

The research was carried out in the form of a questionnaire among 430 students of the Medical University of Silesia in Katowice (Poland) representing various fields of medicine and health sciences. The questions included in the survey analyzed the knowledge of the respondents for 3D printing technology and the opportunities it creates in medicine.

Results

The results indicate that students do have knowledge about 3D printing obtained mainly from the internet. They would be happy to deepen their knowledge at specialized courses in this field. Students appreciated the value of 3D printing in order to obtain accurate anatomical models, helpful in learning. However, they do not consider the possibility of complete abandonment of human cadavers in the anatomy classes. Their knowledge includes basic information about current applications of 3D printing in medicine, but not in all areas. However, they have no ethical doubts regarding the use of 3D printing in any form. The vast majority of students deemed it necessary to incorporate information regarding 3D printing technology into the curriculum of different medical majors.

Conclusion

This research is the first of its kind, which allows for probing students' knowledge about the additive technologies in medicine. Medical education should be extended to include issues related to the use of 3D printing for medical applications.