Search

Editors' Note: This article is the traditional Chinese version of the CONSORT Extension for Chinese Herbal Medicine Formulas 2017: Recommendations, Explanation, and Elaboration. (Cheng C, Wu T, Shang H, Li, Y, Altman D, Moher D; CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017 Group. CONSORT Extension for Chinese Herbal Medicine Formulas 2017: Recommendations, Explanation, and Elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:112-21. [Epub 27 June 2017]. doi:10.7326/M16-2977). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editors' Note: This article is the simplified Chinese version of the CONSORT Extension for Chinese Herbal Medicine Formulas 2017: Recommendations, Explanation, and Elaboration. (Cheng C, Wu T, Shang H, Li, Y, Altman D, Moher D; CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017 Group. CONSORT Extension for Chinese Herbal Medicine Formulas 2017: Recommendations, Explanation, and Elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:112-21. [Epub 27 June 2017]. doi:10.7326/M16-2977). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Annals of Internal Medicine is the property of American College of Physicians and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Incomplete and inadequate reporting is an avoidable waste that reduces the usefulness of research. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement is an evidence-based reporting guideline that aims to improve research transparency and reduce waste. In 2008, the CONSORT Group developed an extension to the original statement that addressed methodological issues specific to trials of nonpharmacologic treatments (NPTs), such as surgery, rehabilitation, or psychotherapy. This article describes an update of that extension and presents an extension for reporting abstracts of NPT trials. To develop these materials, the authors reviewed pertinent literature published up to July 2016; surveyed authors of NPT trials; and conducted a consensus meeting with editors, trialists, and methodologists. Changes to the CONSORT Statement extension for NPT trials include wording modifications to improve readers' understanding and the addition of 3 new items. These items address whether and how adherence of participants to interventions is assessed or enhanced, description of attempts to limit bias if blinding is not possible, and specification of the delay between randomization and initiation of the intervention. The CONSORT extension for abstracts of NPT trials includes 2 new items that were not specified in the original CONSORT Statement for abstracts. The first addresses reporting of eligibility criteria for centers where the intervention is performed and for care providers. The second addresses reporting of important changes to the intervention versus what was planned. Both the updated CONSORT extension for NPT trials and the CONSORT extension for NPT trial abstracts should help authors, editors, and peer reviewers improve the transparency of NPT trial reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (www .prisma-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRIMA) Statement. It notes that the PRIMA is formerly known as QUOROM Statement which centered on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized trials. Moreover, it explores its definition, composition, conception, and its differences from QUOROM.

Background: The conduct of randomized, controlled trials of nonpharmacologic treatments presents specific challenges that are not adequately addressed in trial reports. Objective: To develop an extension of the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement for trials of nonpharmacologic treatments. Design: A consensus meeting was organized to develop an extension of the CONSORT Statement that addresses randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatments. To prepare for the meeting, a survey was conducted to identify the specific issues for discussion. Setting: Consensus meeting in Paris, France. Participants: A total of 33 experts attended the meeting. The experts were methodologists (n = 17); surgeons (n = 6); editors (n = 5); and clinicians involved in rehabilitation (n = 1), psychotherapy (n = 2), education (n = 1), and implantable devices (n = 1). Measurements: Experts indicated which of the 22 items on the CONSORT checklist should be modified or which additional items should be added specifically for nonpharmacologic treatments. During a 3-day consensus meeting, all items were discussed and additional methodological issues related to nonpharmacologic research were identified. Results: The consensus was that 11 items on the CONSORT checklist needed some modifications for nonpharmacologic trials: item 1 (title and abstract), item 3 participants), item 4 (interventions), item 7 (sample size), item 8 (randomization), item 11 (blinding), item 12 (statistical methods), item 13 (participant flow), item 15 (baseline data), item 20 (discussion: interpretation), and item 21 (generalizability). In addition, the meeting participants added 1 item related to implementation of the intervention. Limitation: Evidence was not always available to support the inclusion of each checklist item. Conclusion: The methods and processes used to develop this extension could be used for other reporting guidelines. The use of this extension to the CONSORT Statement should improve the quality of reporting randomized, controlled trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case—control, and cross sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case—control studies, and cross-sectional studies, and 4 are specific to each of the 3 study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors, and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, 1 or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the determination of the frequency and accuracy of adjustment for confounding diseases in medical articles. Number of articles used in adjustment for confounding; Demonstration of infrequent reports on the details of methods used for confounding; Negative categorization on the process of treating the analysis.

Reports on the revised Consolidate Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement intended to improve the reporting of a randomized, controlled trial (RCT). History of CONSORT; Phases of progress in RCT; Features of the evidence-based approach used to develop CONSORT; Proposed items to include when reporting a randomized trial.

Presents commentaries on internal medicine. Methylprednisolone for the emergency treatment of acute asthma; Persistence of Cryptococcus neoformans in the prostate after therapy for meningitis in patients with AIDS; Erythropoietin for anemia in a Jehovah's Witnesses patient.

Following proposals in 1987 and 1988, several medical journals have provided more informative abstracts ("structured abstracts") for articles of clinical interest. Structured abstracts for original studies require authors to systematically disclose the objective, basic research design, clinical setting, participants, interventions (if any), main outcome measurements, results, and conclusions; and for literature reviews the objective, data sources, methods of study selection, data extraction and synthesis, and conclusions. More informative abstracts of this kind can facilitate peer review before publication, assist clinical readers to find articles that are both scientifically sound and applicable to their practices, and allow more precise computerized literature searches. We review the feasibility, acceptability, and dissemination of structured abstracts, reassess the underlying strategy, and describe modifications of the approach. This innovation can aid communication from scientists to clinicians, and other clinical journals are invited to join this effort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the deficiencies in the reporting of health research studies and on EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health Research) that was launched as an international collaboration aiming to enhance the reliability of medical research literature by promoting transparent, accurate reporting of research studies. The EQUATOR team collaborates closely with all parties involved in research publishing and encourages the principles of good research reporting.