Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

Strategies for Developing Journal Peer Reviewers: A Scoping Review

AIM

This scoping review examined development strategies for preparing reviewers to critically appraise the content of manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journals.

BACKGROUND

The journal peer review process is the crux of building the science of nursing education to inform teaching and learning.

METHOD

Using the Joanna Briggs Institute procedure for scoping reviews, five databases were searched for articles published in English in peer-reviewed health sciences journals between 2012 and 2022 that included strategies for developing journal peer reviewers.

RESULTS

Of the 44 articles included in the review, a majority were commentaries (52%) published by medicine (61%), followed by nursing (9%) and multidisciplinary journals (9%). Reviewer development strategies aligned with three themes: pedagogical approaches, resources, and personal practices.

CONCLUSION

Although multiple disciplines addressed peer reviewer development, a comprehensive and effective approach was not reported in the reviewed literature. The findings can inform a multilevel reviewer development program led by academic nurse educators.

The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence

BACKGROUND

Incomplete reporting about what systematic reviewers did and what they found prevents users of the report from being able to fully interpret the findings and understand the limitations of the underlying evidence. Reporting guidelines such as the PRISMA statement and its extensions are designed to improve reporting. However, there are important inconsistencies across the various PRISMA reporting guidelines, which causes confusion and misinterpretation. Coupled with this, users might need to consult multiple guidelines to gain a full understanding of the guidance. Furthermore, the current passive strategy of implementing PRISMA has not fully brought about needed improvements in the completeness of systematic review reporting.

METHODS

The PRISMATIC ('PRISMA, Technology, and Implementation to enhance reporting Completeness') project aims to use novel methods to enable more efficient and effective translation of PRISMA reporting guidelines into practice. We will establish a working group who will develop a unified PRISMA statement that harmonises content across the main PRISMA guideline and several of its extensions. We will then develop a web application that generates a reporting template and checklist customised to the characteristics and methods of a systematic review ('PRISMA-Web app') and conduct a randomised trial to evaluate its impact on authors' reporting. We will also develop a web application that helps peer reviewers appraise systematic review manuscripts ('PRISMA-Peer app') and conduct a diagnostic accuracy study to evaluate its impact on peer reviewers' detection of incomplete reporting.

DISCUSSION

We anticipate the novel guidance and web-based apps developed throughout the project will substantively enhance the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of health evidence, ultimately benefiting users who rely on systematic reviews to inform health care decision-making.

Limited online training opportunities exist for scholarly peer reviewers

OBJECTIVES

To create a comprehensive list of all openly available online trainings in scholarly peer review and to analyze their characteristics.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review of online training material in scholarly peer review openly accessible between 2012 and 2022. Training characteristics were presented in evidence tables and summarized narratively. A risk of bias tool was purpose-built for this study to evaluate the included training material as evidence-based.

RESULTS

Fourty-two training opportunities in manuscript peer review were identified, of which only twenty were openly accessible. Most were online modules (n = 12, 60%) with an estimated completion time of less than 1 hour (n = 13, 65%). Using our ad hoc risk of bias tool, four sources (20%) met our criteria of evidence-based.

CONCLUSION

Our comprehensive search of the literature identified 20 openly accessible online training materials in manuscript peer review. For such a crucial step in the dissemination of literature, a lack of training could potentially explain disparities in the quality of scholarly publishing.

A scoping review identifies multiple comments suggesting modifications to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010

OBJECTIVES

To identify, summarize, and analyse comments on the core reporting guidelines for protocols of randomized trials (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials [SPIRIT] 2013) and for completed trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] 2010), with special emphasis on suggestions for guideline modifications.

METHODS

We included documents written in English and published after 2010 that explicitly commented on SPIRIT 2013 or CONSORT 2010. We searched four bibliographic databases (Embase and MEDLINE to June 2022; Web of Science and Google Scholar to April 2022) and other sources (e.g., the EQUATOR Network website, the BMC Blog Network, and the BMJ rapid response section). Two authors independently assessed documents for eligibility and extracted data on basic characteristics and the wording of the main comments. We categorized comments as 'suggestion for modification to the wording of an existing guideline item,' 'suggestion for a new item,' or 'reflections on challenges or strengths.' We provided a summary and examples of the proposed suggestions and categorized comments into those that were directly linked to empirical investigations, were continuations of previous methodological discussions, or reflected new methodological developments.

RESULTS

We assessed full text of 2,320 potentially eligible documents and included 93 documents with 114 comments. In total, 37 comments suggested modifications to existing guideline items. The participant flow section of CONSORT 2010 received the most comments (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add numbers on nonrandomized screened participants). There were 46 comments suggesting new items. Multiple suggestions were related to trial interventions (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on cointerventions), blinding (six comments suggested to add content on risk of unblinding), statistical methods (five comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on blinding of statisticians), and participant flow (seven comments made different suggestions, e.g., three comments suggested to add content on missing data). Half (53%) of the suggestions were directly linked to empirical investigations. Six (7%) suggestions were continuations of previous methodological discussions and five (6%) suggestions reflected new methodological developments related to conflicts of interest and funding, data sharing, and patient and public involvement.

CONCLUSION

The issues raised provide context to authors, peer reviewers, editors, and readers of trials using SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 and inform the planned updates of the core guidelines.

[The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas]

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision-making. We aimed (1) to assess and compare the reporting characteristics of RCTs between preprints and peer-reviewed publications and (2) to assess whether reporting improves after the peer review process for all preprints subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and L·OVE COVID-19 platform to identify all reports of RCTs assessing pharmacological treatments of COVID-19, up to May 2021. We extracted indicators of transparency (e.g., trial registration, data sharing intentions) and assessed the completeness of reporting (i.e., some important CONSORT items, conflict of interest, ethical approval) using a standardized data extraction form. We also identified paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publications.

RESULTS

We identified 251 trial reports: 121 (48%) were first published in peer-reviewed journals, and 130 (52%) were first published as preprints. Transparency was poor. About half of trials were prospectively registered (n = 140, 56%); 38% (n = 95) made their full protocols available, and 29% (n = 72) provided access to their statistical analysis plan report. A data sharing statement was reported in 68% (n = 170) of the reports of which 91% stated their willingness to share. Completeness of reporting was low: only 32% (n = 81) of trials completely defined the pre-specified primary outcome measures; 57% (n = 143) reported the process of allocation concealment. Overall, 51% (n = 127) adequately reported the results for the primary outcomes while only 14% (n = 36) of trials adequately described harms. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 49% (n = 104) of trials; of them, only 15% (n = 16) disclosed outcome switching in the report. There were no major differences between preprints and peer-reviewed publications. Of the 130 RCTs published as preprints, 78 were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the journal peer review process for most items.

CONCLUSIONS

Transparency, completeness, and consistency of reporting of COVID-19 clinical trials were insufficient both in preprints and peer-reviewed publications. A comparison of paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publication did not indicate major improvement.

Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and recent developments on the communication of clinical trials, publishing practices, and research integrity: in conversation with Dr. David Moher

BACKGROUND

The torrent of research during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed the persistent challenges with reporting trials, open science practices, and scholarship in academia. These real-world examples provide unique learning opportunities for research methodologists and clinical epidemiologists-in-training. Dr. David Moher, a recognized expert on the science of research reporting and one of the founders of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, was a guest speaker for the 2021 Hooker Distinguished Visiting Professor Lecture series at McMaster University and shared his insights about these issues.

MAIN TEXT

This paper covers a discussion on the influence of reporting guidelines on trials and issues with the use of CONSORT as a measure of quality. Dr. Moher also addresses how the overwhelming body of COVID-19 research reflects the "publish or perish" paradigm in academia and why improvement in the reporting of trials requires policy initiatives from research institutions and funding agencies. We also discuss the rise of publication bias and other questionable reporting practices. To combat this, Dr. Moher believes open science and training initiatives led by institutions can foster research integrity, including the trustworthiness of researchers, institutions, and journals, as well as counter threats posed by predatory journals. He highlights how metrics like journal impact factor and quantity of publications also harm research integrity. Dr. Moher also discussed the importance of meta-science, the study of how research is carried out, which can help to evaluate audit and feedback systems and their effect on open science practices.

CONCLUSION

Dr. Moher advocates for policy to further improve the reporting of trials and health research. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how a lack of open science practices and flawed systems incentivizing researchers to publish can harm research integrity. There is a need for a culture shift in assessing careers and "productivity" in academia, and this requires collaborative top-down and bottom-up approaches.

Adherence to the PRISMA-P 2015 reporting guideline was inadequate in systematic review protocols

OBJECTIVE

To investigate to which degree systematic review protocols adhere to the PRISMA-P reporting guideline.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We randomly sampled 50 publications of systematic review protocols indexed in PubMed and 50 protocols uploaded to PROSPERO from 2016 onwards. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed adherence to the 26 items specified by PRISMA-P. For each protocol, we categorised adherence to PRISMA-P as complete (=>90% of PRISMA-P items were fully reported) or partial (=>60% of PRISMA-P items were fully reported). We also assessed adherence to each PRISMA-P item across the protocols.

RESULTS

Four (8%) of the PubMed indexed protocols adhered completely, and 45 (90%) adhered partially to PRISMA-P, but with considerable variation. None (0%) of the PROSPERO uploaded protocols adhered completely and only six (12%) adhered partially to PRISMA-P. For both types of protocols, aspects related to the role of the sponsor, procedures for doing qualitative data synthesis if quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, and methods for assessing publication or outcome reporting biases and confidence in cumulative evidence were often not reported.

CONCLUSION

Adherence to the PRISMA-P reporting guideline was somewhat inadequate in PubMed indexed protocols and clearly inadequate in PROSPERO uploaded protocols. Authors of systematic review protocols that decide to report according to PRISMA-P should carefully check all items included in the guideline, and journal editors and peer reviewers should consider PRISMA-P adherence when reviewing protocols for potential publication.

Assessment of transparency and selective reporting of interventional trials studying colorectal cancer

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is currently one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Our aim was to evaluate transparency and selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.

Methods

First, we assessed indicators of transparency with completeness of reporting, according to the CONSORT statement, and data sharing. We evaluated a selection of reporting items for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying CRC with published full-text articles between 2021–03-22 and 2018–03-22. Selected items were issued from the previously published CONSORT based peer-review tool (COBPeer tool). Then, we evaluated selective reporting through retrospective registration and primary outcome(s) switching between registration and publication. Finally, we determined if primary outcome(s) switching favored significant outcomes.

Results

We evaluated 101 RCTs with published full-text articles between 2021–03-22 and 2018–03-22. Five trials (5%) reported all selected CONSORT items completely. Seventy-four (73%), 53 (52%) and 13 (13%) trials reported the primary outcome(s), the allocation concealment process and harms completely. Twenty-five (25%) trials were willing to share data. In our sample, 49 (49%) trials were retrospectively registered and 23 (23%) trials had primary outcome(s) switching. The influence of primary outcome(s) switching could be evaluated in 16 (16/23 = 70%) trials, with 6 (6/16 = 38%) trials showing a discrepancy that favored statistically significant results.

Conclusions

Our results highlight a lack of transparency as well as frequent selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09334-5.

The Impact of Culturally-Centered Care on Peripartum Experiences of Autonomy and Respect in Community Birth Centers: A Comparative Study

Objective

National studies report that birth center care is associated with reduced racial and ethnic disparities and reduced experiences of mistreatment. In the US, there are very few BIPOC-owned birth centers. This study examines the impact of culturally-centered care delivered at Roots, a Black-owned birth center, on the experience of client autonomy and respect.

Methods

To investigate if there was an association between experiences of autonomy and respect for Roots versus the national Giving Voice to Mothers (GVtM) participants, we applied Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for the overall sample and stratified by race.

Results

Among BIPOC clients in the national GVtM sample and the Roots sample, MADM and MORi scores were statistically higher for clients receiving culturally-centered care at Roots (MADM p < 0.001, MORi p = 0.011). No statistical significance was found in scores between BIPOC and white clients at Roots Birth Center, however there was a tighter range among BIPOC individuals receiving care at Roots showing less variance in their experience of care.

Conclusions for Practice

Our study confirms previous findings suggesting that giving birth at a community birth center is protective against experiences of discrimination when compared to care in the dominant, hospital-based system. Culturally-centered care might enhance the experience of perinatal care even further, by decreasing variance in BIPOC experience of autonomy and respect. Policies on maternal health care reimbursement should add focus on making community birth sustainable, especially for BIPOC provider-owners offering culturally-centered care.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

Development of a checklist to detect errors in meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: study protocol

Background : Systematic reviews underpin clinical practice and policies that guide healthcare decisions. A core component of many systematic reviews is meta-analysis, which is a statistical synthesis of results across studies. Errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis can lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of interventions; and studies have shown that these errors are common. Enabling peer reviewers to better detect errors in meta-analysis through the use of a checklist provides an opportunity for these errors to be rectified before publication. To our knowledge, no such checklist exists. Objective : To develop and evaluate a checklist to detect errors in pairwise meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions. Methods : We will undertake a four-step process to develop the checklist. First, we will undertake a systematic review of studies that have evaluated errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis to generate a bank of items to consider for the checklist. Second, we will undertake a survey of systematic review methodologists and statisticians to seek their views on which items, of the bank of items generated in step 1, are most important to include in the checklist. Third, we will hold a virtual meeting to agree upon which items to include in the checklist. Fourth, before finalising the checklist, we will pilot with editors and peer reviewers of journals. Conclusion : The developed checklist is intended to help journal editors and peer reviewers identify errors in the application and interpretation of meta-analyses in systematic reviews. Fewer errors in the conduct and improved interpretation will lead to more accurate review findings and conclusions to inform clinical practice.

PRISMA 2020 statement: What's new and the importance of reporting guidelines

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009 [1], was developed in an attempt to increase the clarity, transparency, quality and value of these reports [2]. The 27-item checklist and four-phase flow diagram have become the hallmark of academic rigour in the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, having been cited by over 60,000 papers [3]. These are frequently endorsed by journals in their 'Instructions to Authors' [4]. Developments in the methodology and terminology used when conducting systematic reviews [5], alongside the identification of limitations responsible for poor adherence, such as the use of ambiguous wording [6], have warranted an update to the PRISMA statement. The PRISMA 2020 statement, therefore, is intended to reflect this recent evolution in the identification, selection, appraisal and synthesis of research [7]. Here, we present an interpretive analysis of the updated statement, with a view towards encouraging its adoption by both journals and authors in the pursuit of advancing evidence-based medicine.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.