Registration of randomized controlled trials in nursing journals

Why Pre-Registration of Research Must Be Taken More Seriously

The scientific method assumes that researchers use evidence generated from observational research to make predictions (hypotheses) that can be tested experimentally [...].

How prospective trial registration can prevent selective outcome reporting and salami slicing?

BACKGROUND

Pre-registration of a clinical trial before the first participant is recruited can help to prevent selective outcome reporting and salami-slicing that can distort the evidence base for an intervention and result in people being offered care or treatment that is not effective. Rates of clinical trial registration in nursing and midwifery are low.

AIM

To use a hypothetical example from midwifery practice to illustrate how selective outcome reporting and salami-slicing can distort the evidence base.

FINDINGS

A trial of immersion in water during labour and birth is used to consider issues in outcome selection and how researchers may be drawn to switch primary outcomes or report different outcomes across multiple papers.

DISCUSSION

In nursing and midwifery science, selective outcome and salami reporting are seemingly common. Prospective trial registration is intended to prevent these practices, enhancing the quality and integrity of the work.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trials are a robust form of primary research evidence and directly impact clinical practice. Researchers must ensure their trials are correctly registered and editors need to reconcile submitted papers and registration entries as part of the review process.

How is clinical credibility defined in nursing? Protocol for a concept mapping study

AIM

To develop a working definition of the concept of "clinical credibility" in nursing science.

BACKGROUND

In both academic and clinical settings, the phrase "clinical credibility" is used when discussing the education of health professionals. No clear definition for the concept is evident in the academic literature. To date, there has not been a study undertaken to develop a working definition of clinical credibility in nursing science.

METHODS

This protocol is stage 1 of a registered report. We will use concept mapping to compare and organise views of three stakeholder groups: nursing students (n = 20) from years 2 or 3 of a three-year Bachelor of Nursing Programme, nurses and other health professionals (n = 20) still practising within a clinical setting, and people who have recently been inpatients in hospital (n = 20). First, participants will take part in separate stakeholder focus groups to generate statements about "What is clinical credibility?". Second, the same participants will complete two tasks: (1) rank the importance of each statement (prioritising) and (2) put the statements that appear to go together into groups (clustering). The data will then be analysed using a specialised software program called Ariadne. A visual "concept map" will be produced showing the importance and relationship of each statement as viewed by the participants. The projected timeline for the study is one year. The paper complies with the SPIRIT 2013 guidelines for study protocols adapted for mixed methods research.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study will provide a working definition of the concept of "clinical credibility" in nursing science.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The findings can be used to develop a measure of clinical credibility to predict student satisfaction and patient safety outcomes.

Research-training needs of clinical nurses: A nationwide study among tertiary hospitals in China

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate Chinese tertiary hospital nurses' research output, research ability, and their related training needs regarding scientific research methodology and analyze the relations among them.

Methods

A nationwide survey was conducted in China on a large sample of tertiary hospital nurses (n = 27,335) recruited from 22 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities. A validated, self-designed questionnaire, consisted of a common questionnaire, the Science Research Skills Self-Rating Questionnaire (SRSQ) and the Scientific Research Training Needs Questionnaire (SRTNQ) were used to assess nurses' research output, self-rated research skills and research-training needs.

Results

The nurses' scientific research participation rates (with 4.13%, 7.85%, 5.35%, and 2.04% in research projects, research attendance, papers published, and patent, respectively) and their self-rated research skills 25.00 (12.50, 37.50) were very low. However, the research training needs were relatively high 53.12(37.50, 75.00). Significant differences in research participation rates (research projects, research attendance, papers published, and patent), scientific research skills, and research-training needs were determined by age, highest education level, nursing experience, employment, technical title, administrative post, and clinical tutoring experience (P < 0.05). Female and male nurses had different research participation rates (only research projects and studies published) and scientific research skills (P < 0.05). Positive correlations were observed among research output, scientific research skills, and research-training needs (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Nurses' scientific research participation and self-rated research ability were below the optimal despite that they had relatively high research-training needs. Nurses should be provided further research training with tailored content to their characteristics and capacity.

Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prospective trial registration is a powerful tool to prevent reporting bias. We aimed to determine the extent to which published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were registered and registered prospectively.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2005 to October 2017; we also screened all articles cited by or citing included and excluded studies, and the reference lists of related reviews. We included studies that examined published RCTs and evaluated their registration status, regardless of medical specialty or language. We excluded studies that assessed RCT registration status only through mention of registration in the published RCT, without searching registries or contacting the trial investigators. Two independent reviewers blinded to the other's work performed the selection. Following PRISMA guidelines, two investigators independently extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. We calculated pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We analyzed 40 studies examining 8773 RCTs across a wide range of clinical specialties. The pooled proportion of registered RCTs was 53% (95% confidence interval 44% to 58%), with considerable between-study heterogeneity. A subset of 24 studies reported data on prospective registration across 5529 RCTs. The pooled proportion of prospectively registered RCTs was 20% (95% confidence interval 15% to 25%). Subgroup analyses showed that registration was higher for industry-supported and larger RCTs. A meta-regression analysis across 19 studies (5144 RCTs) showed that the proportion of registered trials significantly increased over time, with a mean proportion increase of 27%, from 25 to 52%, between 2005 and 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of trial registration has increased over time, but only one in five published RCTs is prospectively registered, undermining the validity and integrity of biomedical research.

Research Integrity and Peer Review-past highlights and future directions

In May 2016, we launched Research Integrity and Peer Review, an international, open access journal with fully open peer review (reviewers are identified on their reports and named reports are published alongside the article) to provide a home for research on research and publication ethics, research reporting, and research on peer review. As the journal enters its third year, we reflect on recent events and highlights for the journal and explore how the journal is faring in terms of gender and diversity in peer review. We also share the particular interests of our Editors-in-Chief regarding models of peer review, reporting quality, common research integrity issues that arise during the publishing process, and how people interact with the published literature. We continue to encourage further research into peer review, research and publication ethics and research reporting, as we believe that all new initiatives should be evidence-based. We also remain open to constructive discussions of the developments in the field that offer new solutions.