A tool to make reporting checklists work

The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique

Background

Existing reporting guidelines pay insufficient attention to the detail and comprehensiveness reporting of surgical technique. The Surgical techniqUe rePorting chEcklist and standaRds (SUPER) aims to address this gap by defining reporting standards for surgical technique. The SUPER guideline intends to apply to articles that encompass surgical technique in any study design, surgical discipline, and stage of surgical innovation.

Methods

Following the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach, 16 surgeons, journal editors, and methodologists reviewed existing reporting guidelines relating to surgical technique, reviewed papers from 15 top journals, and brainstormed to draft initial items for the SUPER. The initial items were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from 21 multidisciplinary Delphi panel experts from 13 countries and regions. The final SUPER items were formed after an online consensus meeting to resolve disagreements and a three-round wording refinement by all 16 SUPER working group members and five SUPER consultants.

Results

The SUPER reporting guideline includes 22 items that are considered essential for good and informative surgical technique reporting. The items are divided into six sections: background, rationale, and objectives (items 1 to 5); preoperative preparations and requirements (items 6 to 9); surgical technique details (items 10 to 15); postoperative considerations and tasks (items 16 to 19); summary and prospect (items 20 and 21); and other information (item 22).

Conclusions

The SUPER reporting guideline has the potential to guide detailed, comprehensive, and transparent surgical technique reporting for surgeons. It may also assist journal editors, peer reviewers, systematic reviewers, and guideline developers in the evaluation of surgical technique papers and help practitioners to better understand and reproduce surgical technique.

Trial Registration

https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/#SUPER.

Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software: a crossover randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the intention of using a Writing Aid software, which integrates four research reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-nutritional epidemiology) and their Elaboration & Explanation (E&E) documents during the write-up of research in Microsoft Word compared with current practices.

DESIGN

Two-arms crossover randomised controlled trial with no blinding and no washout period.

SETTING

Face-to-face or online sessions.

PARTICIPANTS

54 (28 in arm 1 and 26 in arm 2) doctoral and postdoctoral researchers.

INTERVENTIONS

Reporting guidelines and their E&E document were randomly administered as Writing Aid or as Word documents in a single 30 min to 1 hour session, with a short break before crossing over to the other study intervention.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Using the Technology Acceptance Model, we assessed the primary outcome: the difference in the mean of intention of use; and secondary outcomes: the difference in mean perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. The three outcomes were measured using questions with a 7-point Likert-scale. Secondary analysis using structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied to explore the relationships between the outcomes.

RESULTS

No significant difference in reported intention of use (mean difference and 95% CI 0.25 (-0.05 to 0.55), p=0.10), and perceived usefulness (mean difference and 95% CI 0.19 (-0.04 to 0.41), p=0.10). The Writing Aid performed significantly better than the word document on researchers' perceived ease of use (mean difference and 95% CI 0.59 (0.29 to 0.89), p<0.001). In the SEM analysis, participants' intention of using the tools was indirectly affected by perceived ease of use (beta 0.53 p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite no significant difference in the intention of use between the tools, administering reporting guidelines as Writing Aid is perceived as easier to use, offering a possibility to further explore its applicability to enhance reporting adherence.

A Program to Enhance Writing Skills for Advanced Practice Nurses

BACKGROUND

Advanced practice RNs (APRNs) make important contributions to scholarly journals that are derived from scientific evidence and clinical practice. This article presents a writing program designed to enhance the writing skills of APRNs with a series of online modules, a workshop, and a manuscript checklist.

METHOD

The writing program was implemented in a Doctor of Nursing Practice program and evaluated with a writing self-efficacy scale and open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Findings indicate self-efficacy was high after the writing program, and participants found the checklist to be useful.

CONCLUSION

This program has potential as a course in a nursing school's curriculum or as a continuing education class. Participants can use the program's tools to maintain their writing skills and enhance publication success throughout their careers. [J Contin Educ Nurs. 2019;50(3):109-114.].

A Tool to Encourage Minimum Reporting Guideline Uptake for Data Analysis in Metabolomics

Despite the proposal of minimum reporting guidelines for metabolomics over a decade ago, reporting on the data analysis step in metabolomics studies has been shown to be unclear and incomplete. Major omissions and a lack of logical flow render the data analysis' sections in metabolomics studies impossible to follow, and therefore replicate or even imitate. Here, we propose possible reasons why the original reporting guidelines have had poor adherence and present an approach to improve their uptake. We present in this paper an R markdown reporting template file that guides the production of text and generates workflow diagrams based on user input. This R Markdown template contains, as an example in this instance, a set of minimum information requirements specifically for the data pre-treatment and data analysis section of biomarker discovery metabolomics studies, (gleaned directly from the original proposed guidelines by Goodacre at al). These minimum requirements are presented in the format of a questionnaire checklist in an R markdown template file. The R Markdown reporting template proposed here can be presented as a starting point to encourage the data analysis section of a metabolomics manuscript to have a more logical presentation and to contain enough information to be understandable and reusable. The idea is that these guidelines would be open to user feedback, modification and updating by the metabolomics community via GitHub.

Preparing and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript

Publishing original research in a peer-reviewed and indexed journal is an important milestone for a scientist or a clinician. It is an important parameter to assess academic achievements. However, technical and language barriers may prevent many enthusiasts from ever publishing. This review highlights the important preparatory steps for creating a good manuscript and the most widely used IMRaD (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion) method for writing a good manuscript. It also provides a brief overview of the submission and review process of a manuscript for publishing in a biomedical journal.

Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The CONSORT Statement is an evidence-informed guideline for reporting randomised controlled trials. A number of extensions have been developed that specify additional information to report for more complex trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of using a simple web-based tool (WebCONSORT, which incorporates a number of different CONSORT extensions) on the completeness of reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical publications.

METHODS

We conducted a parallel group randomised trial. Journals which endorsed the CONSORT Statement (i.e. referred to it in the Instruction to Authors) but do not actively implement it (i.e. require authors to submit a completed CONSORT checklist) were invited to participate. Authors of randomised trials were requested by the editor to use the web-based tool at the manuscript revision stage. Authors registering to use the tool were randomised (centralised computer generated) to WebCONSORT or control. In the WebCONSORT group, they had access to a tool allowing them to combine the different CONSORT extensions relevant to their trial and generate a customised checklist and flow diagram that they must submit to the editor. In the control group, authors had only access to a CONSORT flow diagram generator. Authors, journal editors, and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of CONSORT items (main and extensions) reported in each article post revision.

RESULTS

A total of 46 journals actively recruited authors into the trial (25 March 2013 to 22 September 2015); 324 author manuscripts were randomised (WebCONSORT n = 166; control n = 158), of which 197 were reports of randomised trials (n = 94; n = 103). Over a third (39%; n = 127) of registered manuscripts were excluded from the analysis, mainly because the reported study was not a randomised trial. Of those included in the analysis, the most common CONSORT extensions selected were non-pharmacologic (n = 43; n = 50), pragmatic (n = 20; n = 16) and cluster (n = 10; n = 9). In a quarter of manuscripts, authors either wrongly selected an extension or failed to select the right extension when registering their manuscript on the WebCONSORT study site. Overall, there was no important difference in the overall mean score between WebCONSORT (mean score 0.51) and control (0.47) in the proportion of CONSORT and CONSORT extension items reported pertaining to a given study (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

This study failed to show a beneficial effect of a customised web-based CONSORT checklist to help authors prepare more complete trial reports. However, the exclusion of a large number of inappropriately registered manuscripts meant we had less precision than anticipated to detect a difference. Better education is needed, earlier in the publication process, for both authors and journal editorial staff on when and how to implement CONSORT and, in particular, CONSORT-related extensions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01891448 [registered 24 May 2013].

From Checklists to Tools: Lowering the Barrier to Better Research Reporting

The PLOS Medicine Editors reflect on the future of research reporting checklists.