Search

Background To our knowledge, no publication providing overarching guidance on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology exists. Methods and findings Conducting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies of Etiology (COSMOS-E) provides guidance on all steps in systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, from shaping the research question, defining exposure and outcomes, to assessing the risk of bias and statistical analysis. The writing group included researchers experienced in meta-analyses and observational studies of etiology. Standard peer-review was performed. While the structure of systematic reviews of observational studies on etiology may be similar to that for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, there are specific tasks within each component that differ. Examples include assessment for confounding, selection bias, and information bias. In systematic reviews of observational studies of etiology, combining studies in meta-analysis may lead to more precise estimates, but such greater precision does not automatically remedy potential bias. Thorough exploration of sources of heterogeneity is key when assessing the validity of estimates and causality. Conclusion As many reviews of observational studies on etiology are being performed, this document may provide researchers with guidance on how to conduct and analyse such reviews., Author(s): Olaf M. Dekkers 1,2,3,*, Jan P. Vandenbroucke 1,3,4, Myriam Cevallos 5, Andrew G. Renehan 6, Douglas G. Altman 7, Matthias Egger 5,8 Introduction Systematic reviews aim to appraise and [...]

Background The use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]). Methods and findings An international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1-9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process. Conclusions The COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods., Author(s): Jamie J. Kirkham 1, Katherine Davis 1, Douglas G. Altman 2, Jane M. Blazeby 3, Mike Clarke 4, Sean Tunis 5, Paula R. Williamson 1,* Introduction The selection of [...]

Microarray technology measures the mRNA levels of tens of thousands of genes in tissue samples simultaneously in a high-throughput and costeffective manner. Since its introduction over a decade ago [1], [...]

Introduction Scientific publications are one of the most important outputs of any research, as they are the primary means of sharing the findings with the broader research community. The quality [...]

Background Clear, transparent, and sufficiently detailed abstracts of conferences and journal articles related to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important, because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on information in the abstract. Here, we extend the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement to develop a minimum list of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting the results of a RCT in any journal or conference abstract. Methods and Findings We generated a list of items from existing quality assessment tools and empirical evidence. A three-round, modified-Delphi process was used to select items. In all, 109 participants were invited to participate in an electronic survey; the response rate was 61%. Survey results were presented at a meeting of the CONSORT Group in Montebello, Canada, January 2007, involving 26 participants, including clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical editors. Checklist items were discussed for eligibility into the final checklist. The checklist was then revised to ensure that it reflected discussions held during and subsequent to the meeting. CONSORT for Abstracts recommends that abstracts relating to RCTs have a structured format. Items should include details of trial objectives; trial design (e.g., method of allocation, blinding/ masking); trial participants (i.e., description, numbers randomized, and number analyzed); interventions intended for each randomized group and their impact on primary efficacy outcomes and harms; trial conclusions; trial registration name and number; and source of funding. We recommend the checklist be used in conjunction with this explanatory document, which includes examples of good reporting, rationale, and evidence, when available, for the inclusion of each item. Conclusions CONSORT for Abstracts aims to improve reporting of abstracts of RCTs published in journal articles and conference proceedings. It will help authors of abstracts of these trials provide the detail and clarity needed by readers wishing to assess a trial's validity and the applicability of its results., Introduction Well-written abstracts of conferences and journal articles reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important, because readers will often base their initial assessment of a trial on the information reported [...]

ABSTRACT 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 [...]

ABSTRACT 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 generalisability. The Strengthening [...]

ABSTRACT Background Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly popular to a wide range of stakeholders. We set out to capture a representative cross-sectional sample of published SRs and examine them [...]

ABSTRACT Background Ghost authorship, the failure to name, as an author, an individual who has made substantial contributions to an article, may result in lack of accountability. The prevalence and [...]

Background Core outcome sets (COS) can enhance the relevance of research by ensuring that outcomes of importance to health service users and other people making choices about health care in a particular topic area are measured routinely. Over 200 COS to date have been developed, but the clarity of these reports is suboptimal. COS studies will not achieve their goal if reports of COS are not complete and transparent. Methods and Findings In recognition of these issues, an international group that included experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives developed the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR) Statement as a reporting guideline for COS studies. The developmental process consisted of an initial reporting item generation stage and a two-round Delphi survey involving nearly 200 participants representing key stakeholder groups, followed by a consensus meeting. The COS-STAR Statement consists of a checklist of 18 items considered essential for transparent and complete reporting in all COS studies. The checklist items focus on the introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of a manuscript describing the development of a particular COS. A limitation of the COS-STAR Statement is that it was developed without representative views of low- and middle-income countries. COS have equal relevance to studies conducted in these areas, and, subsequently, this guideline may need to evolve over time to encompass any additional challenges from developing COS in these areas. Conclusions With many ongoing COS studies underway, the COS-STAR Statement should be a helpful resource to improve the reporting of COS studies for the benefit of all COS users., Author(s): Jamie J. Kirkham 1, Sarah Gorst 1, Douglas G. Altman 2, Jane M. Blazeby 3, Mike Clarke 4, Declan Devane 5, Elizabeth Gargon 1, David Moher 6, Jochen Schmitt [...]

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs. Methods and Findings We searched MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014. Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria. Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate. We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews, and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs. We identified 682 SRs, suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade. The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China, the UK, or the US; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants. Meta-analysis was performed in 63% of SRs, mostly using standard pairwise methods. Study risk of bias/quality assessment was performed in 70% of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis (16%). Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs. Reporting quality was highly variable; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol, eligibility criteria relating to publication status, years of coverage of the search, a full Boolean search logic for at least one database, methods for data extraction, methods for study risk of bias assessment, a primary outcome, an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations, or the funding source of the SR. Cochrane SRs, which accounted for 15% of the sample, had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs. Reporting has generally improved since 2004, but remains suboptimal for many characteristics. Conclusions An increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research., Author(s): Matthew J. Page 1,2, Larissa Shamseer 3,4, Douglas G. Altman 5, Jennifer Tetzlaff 3, Margaret Sampson 6, Andrea C. Tricco 7,8, Ferrán Catalá-López 3,9, Lun Li 10, Emma K. [...]

Biomedical journals have existed for hundreds of years. They are still the most important conduit for researchers to report the methods and results of their research. However, published articles are [...]

Introduction Prediction models, both diagnostic and prognostic, are becoming increasingly abundant in the medical literature [1-3]. Diagnostic models are aimed at calculating the probability that an individual has a certain [...]

Introduction Predicting the future is big business in health care and medical research. Prognosis research focuses on the risk of future outcomes among individuals with a given disease or health [...]

Background: Most publications about selective reporting in clinical trials have focussed on outcomes. However, selective reporting of analyses for a given outcome may also affect the validity of findings. If analyses are selected on the basis of the results, reporting bias may occur. The aims of this study were to review and summarise the evidence from empirical cohort studies that assessed discrepant or selective reporting of analyses in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods and Findings: A systematic review was conducted and included cohort studies that assessed any aspect of the reporting of analyses of RCTs by comparing different trial documents, e.g., protocol compared to trial report, or different sections within a trial publication. The Cochrane Methodology Register, Medline (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), and PubMed were searched on 5 February 2014. Two authors independently selected studies, performed data extraction, and assessed the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Twenty-two studies (containing 3,140 RCTs) published between 2000 and 2013 were included. Twenty-two studies reported on discrepancies between information given in different sources. Discrepancies were found in statistical analyses (eight studies), composite outcomes (one study), the handling of missing data (three studies), unadjusted versus adjusted analyses (three studies), handling of continuous data (three studies), and subgroup analyses (12 studies). Discrepancy rates varied, ranging from 7% (3/42) to 88% (7/8) in statistical analyses, 46% (36/79) to 82% (23/28) in adjusted versus unadjusted analyses, and 61% (11/18) to 100% (25/25) in subgroup analyses. This review is limited in that none of the included studies investigated the evidence for bias resulting from selective reporting of analyses. It was not possible to combine studies to provide overall summary estimates, and so the results of studies are discussed narratively. Conclusions: Discrepancies in analyses between publications and other study documentation were common, but reasons for these discrepancies were not discussed in the trial reports. To ensure transparency, protocols and statistical analysis plans need to be published, and investigators should adhere to these or explain discrepancies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary., Introduction Selective reporting in clinical trial reports has been described mainly with respect to the reporting of a subset of the originally recorded outcome variables in the final trial report. [...]

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely accepted as the preferred study design for evaluating healthcare interventions. When the sample size is determined, a (target) difference is typically specified that the RCT is designed to detect. This provides reassurance that the study will be informative, i.e., should such a difference exist, it is likely to be detected with the required statistical precision. The aim of this review was to identify potential methods for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation. Methods and Findings: A comprehensive systematic review of medical and non-medical literature was carried out for methods that could be used to specify the target difference for an RCT sample size calculation. The databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Methodology Register, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index, EconLit, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and Scopus (for in-press publications);the search period was from 1966 or the earliest date covered, to between November 2010 and January 2011. Additionally, textbooks addressing the methodology of clinical trials and International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) tripartite guidelines for clinical trials were also consulted. A narrative synthesis of methods was produced. Studies that described a method that could be used for specifying an important and/or realistic difference were included. The search identified 11,485 potentially relevant articles from the databases searched. Of these, 1,434 were selected for full-text assessment, and a further nine were identified from other sources. Fifteen clinical trial textbooks and the ICH tripartite guidelines were also reviewed. In total, 777 studies were included, and within them, seven methods were identified--anchor, distribution, health economic, opinion-seeking, pilot study, review of the evidence base, and standardised effect size. Conclusions: A variety of methods are available that researchers can use for specifying the target difference in an RCT sample size calculation. Appropriate methods may vary depending on the aim (e.g., specifying an important difference versus a realistic difference), context (e.g., research question and availability of data), and underlying framework adopted (e.g., Bayesian versus conventional statistical approach). Guidance on the use of each method is given. No single method provides a perfect solution for all contexts. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary., Introduction A randomised controlled trial (RCT) is widely regarded as the preferred study design for comparing the effectiveness of health interventions [1]. Central to the design and validity of an [...]

Introduction When readers screen the title of an article, and parts of its abstract, they try to determine whether or not to devote their scarce time to reading on. Some [...]

Prognostic models are abundant in the medical literature yet their use in practice seems limited. In this article, the third in the PROGRESS series, the authors review how such models are developed and validated, and then address how prognostic models are assessed for their impact on practice and patient outcomes, illustrating these ideas with examples., The first two papers in this series focus on the variability in prognostic endpoints given specific startpoints [1] and on the search for factors that are associated with these endpoints [...]

Prognostic factor research aims to identify factors associated with subsequent clinical outcome in people with a particular disease or health condition. In this article, the second in the PROGRESS series, the authors discuss the role of prognostic factors in current clinical practice, randomised trials, and developing new interventions, and explain why and how prognostic factor research should be improved., A prognostic factor is any measure that, among people with a given health condition (that is, a startpoint), is associated with a subsequent clinical outcome (an endpoint). For example, in [...]

Background The purpose of this paper is to provide more complete explanations of each of the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) checklist items and to provide specific [...]

Background: We investigated the reporting and methods of prediction studies, focusing on aims, designs, participant selection, outcomes, predictors, statistical power, statistical methods, and predictive performance measures. Methods and Findings: We used a full hand search to identify all prediction studies published in 2008 in six high impact general medical journals. We developed a comprehensive item list to systematically score conduct and reporting of the studies, based on recent recommendations for prediction research. Two reviewers independently scored the studies. We retrieved 71 papers for full text review: 51 were predictor finding studies, 14 were prediction model development studies, three addressed an external validation of a previously developed model, and three reported on a model's impact on participant outcome. Study design was unclear in 15% of studies, and a prospective cohort was used in most studies (60%). Descriptions of the participants and definitions of predictor and outcome were generally good. Despite many recommendations against doing so, continuous predictors were often dichotomized (32% of studies). The number of events per predictor as a measure of statistical power could not be determined in 67% of the studies; of the remainder, 53% had fewer than the commonly recommended value of ten events per predictor. Methods for a priori selection of candidate predictors were described in most studies (68%). A substantial number of studies relied on a p-value cut-off of p Conclusions: The majority of prediction studies in high impact journals do not follow current methodological recommendations, limiting their reliability and applicability. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary., Introduction In recent years there has been an increasing interest in the methodology of prediction research [1--16]. Prediction research includes both diagnostic prediction studies studying the ability of variables or [...]

Introduction Randomised controlled trials, when appropriately designed, conducted, and reported, represent the gold standard in evaluating healthcare interventions. However, randomised trials can yield biased results if they lack methodological rigour [...]

Introduction Publishing health research is a thriving, and increasing, enterprise. On any given month about 63,000 new articles are indexed in PubMed, the United States National Library of Medicine's public [...]

Background: Core outcome sets (COS) comprise a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials for a specific health condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative maintains an up to date, publicly accessible online database of published and ongoing COS. An annual systematic review update is an important part of this process. Methods: This review employed the same, multifaceted approach that was used in the original review and the previous two updates. This approach has identified studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. This update includes an analysis of the inclusion of participants from low and middle income countries (LMICs) as identified by the OECD, in these COS. Results: Eighteen publications, relating to 15 new studies describing the development of 15 COS, were eligible for inclusion in the review. Results show an increase in the use of mixed methods, including Delphi surveys. Clinical experts remain the most common stakeholder group involved. Overall, only 16% of the 259 COS studies published up to the end of 2016 have included participants from LMICs. Conclusion: This review highlights opportunities for greater public participation in COS development and the involvement of stakeholders from a wider range of geographical settings, in particular LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although biomarkers are perceived as highly relevant for future clinical practice, few biomarkers reach clinical utility for several reasons. Among them, poor reporting of studies is one of the major problems. To aid improvement, reporting guidelines like REMARK for tumour marker prognostic (TMP) studies were introduced several years ago. The aims of this project were to assess whether reporting quality of TMP-studies improved in comparison to a previously conducted study assessing reporting quality of TMP-studies (PRE-study) and to assess whether articles citing REMARK (citing group) are better reported, in comparison to articles not citing REMARK (not-citing group). For the POST-study, recent articles citing and not citing REMARK (53 each) were identified in selected journals through systematic literature search and evaluated in same way as in the PRE-study. Ten of the 20 items of the REMARK checklist were evaluated and used to define an overall score of reporting quality. The observed overall scores were 53.4% (range: 10%-90%) for the PRE-study, 57.7% (range: 20%-100%) for the not-citing group and 58.1% (range: 30%-100%) for the citing group of the POST-study. While there is no difference between the two groups of the POST-study, the POST-study shows a slight but not relevant improvement in reporting relative to the PRE-study. Not all the articles of the citing group, cited REMARK appropriately. Irrespective of whether REMARK was cited, the overall score was slightly higher for articles published in journals requesting adherence to REMARK than for those published in journals not requesting it: 59.9% versus 51.9%, respectively. Several years after the introduction of REMARK, many key items of TMP-studies are still very poorly reported. A combined effort is needed from authors, editors, reviewers and methodologists to improve the current situation. Good reporting is not just nice to have but is essential for any research to be useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A COS represents an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all trials of a specific condition. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) initiative aims to collate and stimulate the development and application of COS, by including data on relevant studies within a publically available internet-based resource. In recent years, there has been an interest in increasing the development of COS. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an update of a previous review, and examine the quality of development of COS. A further aim was to understand the reasons why individuals are searching the COMET database. Methods: A multi-faceted search strategy was followed, in order to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in clinical trials of a specific condition. Additionally, a pop up survey was added to the COMET website, to ascertain why people were searching the COMET database. Results: Thirty-two reports relating to 29 studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. There has been an improvement in the description of the scope of a COS and an increase in the proportion of studies using literature/systematic reviews and the Delphi technique. Clinical experts continue to be the most common group involved in developing COS, however patient and public involvement has increased. The pop-up survey revealed the most common reasons for visiting the COMET website to be thinking about developing a COS and planning a clinical trial. Conclusions: This update demonstrates that recent studies appear to have adopted a more structured approach towards COS development and public representation has increased. However, there remains a need for developers to adequately describe details about the scope of COS, and for greater public engagement. The COMET database appears to be a useful resource for both COS developers and users of COS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To quantify the incremental benefit of computer-assisted-detection (CAD) for polyps, for inexperienced readers versus experienced readers of CT colonography. Methods: 10 inexperienced and 16 experienced radiologists interpreted 102 colonography studies unassisted and with CAD utilised in a concurrent paradigm. They indicated any polyps detected on a study sheet. Readers’ interpretations were compared against a ground-truth reference standard: 46 studies were normal and 56 had at least one polyp (132 polyps in total). The primary study outcome was the difference in CAD net benefit (a combination of change in sensitivity and change in specificity with CAD, weighted towards sensitivity) for detection of patients with polyps. Results: Inexperienced readers’ per-patient sensitivity rose from 39.1% to 53.2% with CAD and specificity fell from 94.1% to 88.0%, both statistically significant. Experienced readers’ sensitivity rose from 57.5% to 62.1% and specificity fell from 91.0% to 88.3%, both non-significant. Net benefit with CAD assistance was significant for inexperienced readers but not for experienced readers: 11.2% (95%CI 3.1% to 18.9%) versus 3.2% (95%CI -1.9% to 8.3%) respectively. Conclusions: Concurrent CAD resulted in a significant net benefit when used by inexperienced readers to identify patients with polyps by CT colonography. The net benefit was nearly four times the magnitude of that observed for experienced readers. Experienced readers did not benefit significantly from concurrent CAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We examined the design, analysis and reporting in multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) research studies using the area under the receiver-operating curve (ROC AUC) as a measure of diagnostic performance. Methods: We performed a systematic literature review from 2005 to 2013 inclusive to identify a minimum 50 studies. Articles of diagnostic test accuracy in humans were identified via their citation of key methodological articles dealing with MRMC ROC AUC. Two researchers in consensus then extracted information from primary articles relating to study characteristics and design, methods for reporting study outcomes, model fitting, model assumptions, presentation of results, and interpretation of findings. Results were summarized and presented with a descriptive analysis. Results: Sixty-four full papers were retrieved from 475 identified citations and ultimately 49 articles describing 51 studies were reviewed and extracted. Radiological imaging was the index test in all. Most studies focused on lesion detection vs. characterization and used less than 10 readers. Only 6 (12%) studies trained readers in advance to use the confidence scale used to build the ROC curve. Overall, description of confidence scores, the ROC curve and its analysis was often incomplete. For example, 21 (41%) studies presented no ROC curve and only 3 (6%) described the distribution of confidence scores. Of 30 studies presenting curves, only 4 (13%) presented the data points underlying the curve, thereby allowing assessment of extrapolation. The mean change in AUC was 0.05 (−0.05 to 0.28). Non-significant change in AUC was attributed to underpowering rather than the diagnostic test failing to improve diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions: Data reporting in MRMC studies using ROC AUC as an outcome measure is frequently incomplete, hampering understanding of methods and the reliability of results and study conclusions. Authors using this analysis should be encouraged to provide a full description of their methods and results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Calls have been made for increased access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials, to ensure that complete evidence is available. However, despite the obvious benefits, progress towards this is frustratingly slow. In the meantime, many systematic reviews have already collected IPD from clinical trials. We propose that a central repository for these IPD should be established to ensure that these datasets are safeguarded and made available for use by others, building on the strengths and advantages of the collaborative groups that have been brought together in developing the datasets. Objective: Evaluate the level of support, and identify major issues, for establishing a central repository of IPD. Design: On-line survey with email reminders. Participants: 71 reviewers affiliated with the Cochrane Collaboration's IPD Meta-analysis Methods Group were invited to participate. Results: 30 (42%) invitees responded: 28 (93%) had been involved in an IPD review and 24 (80%) had been involved in a randomised trial. 25 (83%) agreed that a central repository was a good idea and 25 (83%) agreed that they would provide their IPD for central storage. Several benefits of a central repository were noted: safeguarding and standardisation of data, increased efficiency of IPD meta-analyses, knowledge advancement, and facilitating future clinical, and methodological research. The main concerns were gaining permission from trial data owners, uncertainty about the purpose of the repository, potential resource implications, and increased workload for IPD reviewers. Restricted access requiring approval, data security, anonymisation of data, and oversight committees were highlighted as issues under governance of the repository. Conclusion: There is support in this community of IPD reviewers, many of whom are also involved in clinical trials, for storing IPD in a central repository. Results from this survey are informing further work on developing a repository of IPD which is currently underway by our group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Some have suggested the quality of reporting of network meta-analyses (a technique used to synthesize information to compare multiple interventions) is sub-optimal. We sought to review information addressing this claim. Objective: To conduct an overview of existing evaluations of quality of reporting in network meta-analyses and indirect treatment comparisons, and to compile a list of topics which may require detailed reporting guidance to enhance future reporting quality. Methods: An electronic search of Medline and the Cochrane Registry of methodologic studies (January 2004–August 2013) was performed by an information specialist. Studies describing findings from quality of reporting assessments were sought. Screening of abstracts and full texts was performed by two team members. Descriptors related to all aspects of reporting a network meta-analysis were summarized. Results: We included eight reports exploring the quality of reporting of network meta-analyses. From past reviews, authors found several aspects of network meta-analyses were inadequately reported, including primary information about literature searching, study selection, and risk of bias evaluations; statement of the underlying assumptions for network meta-analysis, as well as efforts to verify their validity; details of statistical models used for analyses (including information for both Bayesian and Frequentist approaches); completeness of reporting of findings; and approaches for summarizing probability measures as additional important considerations. Conclusions: While few studies were identified, several deficiencies in the current reporting of network meta-analyses were observed. These findings reinforce the need to develop reporting guidance for network meta-analyses. Findings from this review will be used to guide next steps in the development of reporting guidance for network meta-analysis in the format of an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis) Statement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To establish the relative weighting given by patients and healthcare professionals to gains in diagnostic sensitivity versus loss of specificity when using CT colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer screening. Materials and Methods: Following ethical approval and informed consent, 75 patients and 50 healthcare professionals undertook a discrete choice experiment in which they chose between “standard” CTC and “enhanced” CTC that raised diagnostic sensitivity 10% for either cancer or polyps in exchange for varying levels of specificity. We established the relative increase in false-positive diagnoses participants traded for an increase in true-positive diagnoses. Results: Data from 122 participants were analysed. There were 30 (25%) non-traders for the cancer scenario and 20 (16%) for the polyp scenario. For cancer, the 10% gain in sensitivity was traded up to a median 45% (IQR 25 to >85) drop in specificity, equating to 2250 (IQR 1250 to >4250) additional false-positives per additional true-positive cancer, at 0.2% prevalence. For polyps, the figure was 15% (IQR 7.5 to 55), equating to 6 (IQR 3 to 22) additional false-positives per additional true-positive polyp, at 25% prevalence. Tipping points were significantly higher for patients than professionals for both cancer (85 vs 25, p<0.001) and polyps (55 vs 15, p<0.001). Patients were willing to pay significantly more for increased sensitivity for cancer (p = 0.021). Conclusion: When screening for colorectal cancer, patients and professionals believe gains in true-positive diagnoses are worth much more than the negative consequences of a corresponding rise in false-positives. Evaluation of screening tests should account for this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses that obtain "raw" data from studies rather than data typically adopt a "two-stage" approach to analysis whereby IPD within trials generate measures, which are combined using standard meta-analytical methods. Recently, a range of "one-stage" approaches which combine all individual participant data in a single meta-analysis have been suggested as providing a more powerful and flexible approach. However, they are more complex to implement and require statistical support. This study uses a dataset to compare "two-stage" and "one-stage" models of varying complexity, to ascertain whether results obtained from the approaches differ in a clinically meaningful way. Methods and Findings: We included data from 24 randomised controlled trials, evaluating antiplatelet agents, for the prevention of pre-eclampsia in pregnancy. We performed two-stage and one-stage IPD meta-analyses to estimate overall treatment effect and to explore potential treatment interactions whereby particular types of women and their babies might benefit differentially from receiving antiplatelets. Two-stage and one-stage approaches gave similar results, showing a benefit of using anti-platelets (Relative risk 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). Neither approach suggested that any particular type of women benefited more or less from antiplatelets. There were no material differences in results between different types of one-stage model. Conclusions: For these data, two-stage and one-stage approaches to analysis produce similar results. Although one-stage models offer a flexible environment for exploring model structure and are useful where across study patterns relating to types of participant, intervention and outcome mask similar relationships within trials, the additional insights provided by their usage may not outweigh the costs of statistical support for routine application in syntheses of randomised controlled trials. Researchers considering undertaking an IPD meta-analysis should not necessarily be deterred by a perceived need for sophisticated statistical methods when combining information from large randomised trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pre-publication peer review of manuscripts should enhance the value of research publications to readers who may wish to utilize findings in clinical care or health policy-making. Much published research across all medical specialties is not useful, may be misleading, wasteful and even harmful. Reporting guidelines are tools that in addition to helping authors prepare better manuscripts may help peer reviewers in assessing them. We examined journals' instructions to peer reviewers to see if and how reviewers are encouraged to use them. Methods: We surveyed websites of 116 journals from the McMaster list. Main outcomes were 1) identification of online instructions to peer reviewers and 2) presence or absence of key domains within instructions: on journal logistics, reviewer etiquette and addressing manuscript content (11 domains). Findings: Only 41/116 journals (35%) provided online instructions. All 41 guided reviewers about the logistics of their review processes, 38 (93%) outlined standards of behaviour expected and 39 (95%) contained instruction about evaluating the manuscript content. There was great variation in explicit instruction for reviewers about how to evaluate manuscript content. Almost half of the online instructions 19/41 (46%) mentioned reporting guidelines usually as general statements suggesting they may be useful or asking whether authors had followed them rather than clear instructions about how to use them. All 19 named CONSORT for reporting randomized trials but there was little mention of CONSORT extensions. PRISMA, QUOROM (forerunner of PRISMA), STARD, STROBE and MOOSE were mentioned by several journals. No other reporting guideline was mentioned by more than two journals. Conclusions: Although almost half of instructions mentioned reporting guidelines, their value in improving research publications is not being fully realised. Journals have a responsibility to support peer reviewers. We make several recommendations including wider reference to the EQUATOR Network online library (www.equator-network.org/). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, the authors discuss the Animals in Research: Reporting In Vitro Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines in Great Britain. They state the importance of good reporting for peer review to avoid duplicating studies and performing redundant experiments. They mention the importance of the guidelines to improve reporting on bioscience research and note the importance of ARRIVE guidelines as a practical resource.

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 (http://www. prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the revision of the guidelines called Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) which was renamed as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). It states that QUOROM has focused on the reporting of the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. It adds that PRISMA is tasked to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews.

Background: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to nonsignificant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake metaanalysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this explanatory and elaboration document Mattias Egger and colleagues provide the meaning and rationale of each checklist item on the STROBE Statement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a letter to the editor about unjustified restrictions on letters to the editor.

For scientific, ethical and economic reasons, experiments involving animals should be appropriately designed, correctly analysed and transparently reported. This increases the scientific validity of the results, and maximises the knowledge gained from each experiment. A minimum amount of relevant information must be included in scientific publications to ensure that the methods and results of a study can be reviewed, analysed and repeated. Omitting essential information can raise scientific and ethical concerns. We report the findings of a systematic survey of reporting, experimental design and statistical analysis in published biomedical research using laboratory animals. Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies reporting research on live rats, mice and non-human primates carried out in UK and US publicly funded research establishments. Detailed information was collected from 271 publications, about the objective or hypothesis of the study, the number, sex, age and/or weight of animals used, and experimental and statistical methods. Only 59% of the studies stated the hypothesis or objective of the study and the number and characteristics of the animals used. Appropriate and efficient experimental design is a critical component of high-quality science. Most of the papers surveyed did not use randomisation (87%) or blinding (86%), to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment. Only 70% of the publications that used statistical methods described their methods and presented the results with a measure of error or variability. This survey has identified a number of issues that need to be addressed in order to improve experimental design and reporting in publications describing research using animals. Scientific publication is a powerful and important source of information; the authors of scientific publications therefore have a responsibility to describe their methods and results comprehensively, accurately and transparently, and peer reviewers and journal editors share the responsibility to ensure that published studies fulfil these criteria.