For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
92
views
20
references
 Top references
cited by
166
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      43
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Although current electronic methods of scientific publishing offer increased opportunities for publishing all research studies and describing them in sufficient detail, health research literature still suffers from many shortcomings. These shortcomings seriously undermine the value and utility of the literature and waste scarce resources invested in the research. In recent years there have been several positive steps aimed at improving this situation, such as a strengthening of journals' policies on research publication and the wide requirement to register clinical trials.

          The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative set up to advance high quality reporting of health research studies; it promotes good reporting practices including the wider implementation of reporting guidelines. EQUATOR provides free online resources http://www.equator-network.org supported by education and training activities and assists in the development of robust reporting guidelines. This paper outlines EQUATOR's goals and activities and offers suggestions for organizations and individuals involved in health research on how to strengthen research reporting.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

          Kerry Dwan, Douglas G. Altman, Juan A. Arnaiz … (2008)
          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 non-significant 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 meta-analysis 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.
          Article 0 comments Cited 438 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research.

            I Simera, D Moher, J Hoey … (2010)
            Growing evidence demonstrates widespread deficiencies in the reporting of health research studies. The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that aims to enhance the reliability and value of the published health research literature. EQUATOR provides resources, education and training to facilitate good research reporting and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of robust reporting guidelines. This paper presents a collection of tools and guidelines available on the EQUATOR website (http://www.equator-network.org) that have been developed to increase the accuracy and transparency of health research reporting.
            Article 0 comments Cited 287 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Scientists behaving badly.

              Brian Martinson, Melissa Anderson, Raymond de Vries (2005)
              Article 0 comments Cited 265 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Med
                Title: BMC Medicine
                Publisher: BioMed Central
                ISSN (Electronic): 1741-7015
                Publication date Collection: 2010
                Publication date (Electronic): 26 April 2010
                Volume: 8
                Page: 24
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [2 ]Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
                [3 ]Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
                [4 ]Family Health International, Durham; UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
                Article
                Publisher ID: 1741-7015-8-24
                DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24
                PMC ID: 2874506
                PubMed ID: 20420659
                SO-VID: 34c3f568-2f80-4f58-bfec-e053718b8e99
                Copyright © Copyright ©2010 Simera et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 9 April 2010
                Date accepted : 26 April 2010
                Categories
                Subject: Commentary

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content43

                See all similar

                Cited by151

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,381

                See all reference authors