text.skipToContent text.skipToNavigation

Guidelines for Reporting Health Research A User's Manual

  • Erscheinungsdatum: 06.08.2014
  • Verlag: BMJ Books
eBook (ePUB)
34,99 €
inkl. gesetzl. MwSt.
Sofort per Download lieferbar

Online verfügbar

Guidelines for Reporting Health Research

Guidelines for Reporting Health Research is a practical guide to choosing and correctly applying the appropriate guidelines when reporting health research to ensure clear, transparent, and useful reports. This new title begins with an introduction to reporting guidelines and an overview of the importance of transparent reporting, the characteristics of good guidelines, and how to use reporting guidelines effectively in reporting health research. This hands-on manual also describes over a dozen internationally recognised published guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA and STARD in a clear and easy to understand format. It aims to help researchers choose and use the correct guidelines for reporting their research, and to produce more completely and transparently reported papers which will help to ensure reports are more useful and are not misleading. Written by the authors of health research reporting guidelines, in association with the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network, Guidelines for Reporting Health Research is a helpful guide to producing publishable research. It will be a valuable resource for researchers in their role as authors and also an important reference for editors and peer reviewers. Matthias Egger is professor of epidemiology and public health at the University of Bern in Switzerland, as well as professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom. George Davey-Smith is the editor of Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context , 2nd Edition, published by Wiley. Douglas G. Altman , Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford and EQUATOR Network, Oxford, UK.


    Format: ePUB
    Kopierschutz: AdobeDRM
    Seitenzahl: 344
    Erscheinungsdatum: 06.08.2014
    Sprache: Englisch
    ISBN: 9781118715611
    Verlag: BMJ Books
    Größe: 2692 kBytes
Weiterlesen weniger lesen

Guidelines for Reporting Health Research


Guides to guidelines

Drummond Rennie, MD

University of California, San Francisco, USA

Good patient care must be based on treatments that have been shown by good research to be effective. An intrinsic part of good research is a published paper that closely reflects the work done and the conclusions drawn. This book is about preventing, even curing, a widespread endemic disease: biased and inadequate reporting. This bias and poor reporting threatens to overwhelm the credibility of research and to ensure that our treatments are based on fiction, not fact.

Over the past two decades, there has been a spate of published guidelines on reporting, ostensibly to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts. Following the guidelines, manuscripts will include all the information necessary for an informed reader to be fully persuaded by the paper. At the same time, the articles will be well organized, easy to read, well argued, and self-critical. From the design phase of the research, when they may serve as an intervention to remind investigators, editors, and reviewers who find it easy to get the facts, and to note what facts are missing, all the way through to the reader of the published article who finds it easy to access the facts, all of them in context.

To which, given the ignorance, ineptitude, inattention, and bias of so many investigators, reviewers, and journal editors, I would add a decisive "Maybe!"
How did it start? How did we get here?

In 1966, 47 years ago, Dr Stanley Schor, a biostatistician in the Department of Biostatistics at the American Medical Association, in Chicago, and Irving Karten, then a medical student, published in JAMA the results of a careful examination of a random sample of published reports taken from the 10 most prominent medical journals. Schor and Karten focused their attention on half of the reports that they considered to be "analytical studies," 149 in number, as opposed to reports of cases. They identified 12 types of statistical errors, and they found that the conclusions were invalid in 73%. "None of the ten journals had more than 40% of its analytical studies considered acceptable; two of the ten had no acceptable reports." Schor and Karten speculated on the implications for medical practice, given that these defects occurred in the most widely read and respected journals, and they ended presciently: "since, with the introduction of computers, much work is being done to make the results of studies appearing in medical journals more accessible to physicians, a considerable amount of misinformation could be disseminated rapidly." Boy, did they get that one right!

Better yet, this extraordinary paper also included the results of an experiment: 514 manuscripts submitted to one journal were reviewed by a statistician. Only 26% were "acceptable" statistically. However, the intervention of a statistical review raised the "acceptable" rate to 74%. Schor and Karten's recommendation was that a statistician be made part of the investigator's team and of the editors' team as well [1]. Their findings were confirmed by many others, for example, Gardner and Bond [2].

I got my first taste of editing in 1977 at the New England Journal of Medicine , and first there and then at JAMA the Journal of the American Medical Association , my daily job has been to try to select the best reports of the most innovative, important, and relevant research submitted to a large-circulation general medical journal. Although the best papers were exciting and solid, they seemed like islands floating in a swamp of paper rubbish. So from the start, the Schor/Karten paper was a beacon. Not only did the authors identify a major problem in the literature, and did so using scientific metho

Weiterlesen weniger lesen