A tool to make reporting checklists work

BMC Medicine

Ana Marušić¹ 

[1]Journal of Global Health, Split, Croatia

关键词: Writing;    Reporting guidelines;    Online tools;    CONSORT;   

Others  :  1227637
DOI  :  10.1186/s12916-015-0476-3

 received in 2015-09-03, accepted in 2015-09-03,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Although the use of reporting guidelines has been demonstrated to increase the completeness and transparency of health research published in journals, there is still a long way to translate their use to the authors at the time where they are needed – during the actual research process and manuscript writing. An online tool for writing methodology section of a randomized controlled trial has been successfully tested in an experimental setting and provides a direction for the development of writing tools for health research. Writing tools should not replace original thinking and the excitement of communicating original discoveries, but make sure that all relevant data are in the manuscript so that research results can be understood, critically evaluated and used in practice.

Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/221

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Marušić.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Barnes C, Butron I, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort Based WEB tool) randomized trial. BMC Med. 2015;13:221.
• [2]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010; 8:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux PJ et al.. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epi. 2010; 63:e1-e37.
• [4]Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T et al.. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 11:MR000030.
• [5]Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I et al.. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996; 276:637-639.
• [6]Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. Impact of CONSORT. http://www.consort-statement.org/about-consort/impact-of-consort. Accessed 29 Aug 2015.
• [7]Gawande A. The checklist manifesto: how to get things right. Metropolitan Books, New York; 2009.
• [8]Haynes AB, Wieser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat AH, Dellinger EP et al.. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in global population. New Engl J Med. 2009; 360:491-499.
• [9]Bergs J, Hellings J, Cleemput I, Zurel Ö, De Troyer V, Van Hiel M et al.. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist on postoperative complications. Br J Surg. 2014; 101:150-158.
• [10]Arriaga AF, Bader AM, Wong JM, Lipsitz SR, Berry WR, Ziewacz JE et al.. Simulation-based trial of surgical-crisis checklists. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368:246-253.
• [11]Russ SJ, Sevdalis N, Moorthy K, Mayer EK, Rout S, Caris J et al.. A qualitative evaluation of the barriers and facilitators toward implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist across hospitals in England: lessons from the “Surgical Checklist Implementation Project”. Ann Surg. 2015; 261:81-91.
• [12]Bergs J, Lambrechts F, Simons P, Vlayen A, Marneffe W, Hellings J et al.. Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of surgical safety checklists: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015.
• [13]EQUATOR Network Search for reporting guidelines. http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/. Accessed 29 Aug 2015.
• [14]Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S et al.. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014; 383:267-276.
• [15]Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010; 7:e1000217.
• [16]Marušić A, Sambunjak D, Jerončić A, Malički M, Marušić M. No health research without education for research–experience from an integrated course in undergraduate medical curriculum. Med Teach. 2013; 35:609.
• [17]Maclure M. Dr. Tom Chalmers, 1917–1995: Trials of a randomizer. CMAJ. 1996; 155:757-760.
• [18]Glasziou PP, Sawicki PT, Prasad K, Montori VM. . Not a medical course, but a life course. Acad Med. 2011; 86:e4.
• [19]Cochrane Schizophrenia Group. RevMan HAL v 4.0 Frequently asked questions. http://szg.cochrane.org/revman-hal-v-40-frequently-asked-questions. Accessed 29 Aug 2015.
• [20]Morris NR, Kermeen FD, Holland AE. Exercise-based rehabilitation programmes for pulmonary hypertension (Protocol). Cochrane Database Syst Revs. 2014; 10: Article ID CD011285
• [21]Hüske-Kraus D. Text generation in clinical medicine – a review. Methods Inf Med. 2003; 42:51-60.
• [22]Scott D, Hallett C, Fettiplace R. Data-to-text summarisation of patient records: using computer-generated summaries to access patient histories. Patient Educ Couns. 2013; 92:153-159.
• [23]Van Noorden R. Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature News, 24 Feb 2014. http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763. Accessed 31 Aug 2015.
• [24]Stahel PF, Moore EE. Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system. BMC Med. 2014; 12:179. BioMed Central Full Text