The surgical case report（SCARE）statement is the report checklist made by European researchers in 2016, which is specialized for surgical case report. As a reference for enhancing the research quality and transparency, the SCARE statement provides a fundamental framework for surgical case reports. The last SCARE statement was revised in 2020, and this paper interprets it to provide a practical tool for domestic researchers in surgical case report.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 and to compare the reporting quality with that from 2004 to 2008. MethodsRCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals were collected through a computerized search of the CNKI, WanFang Data, and CBM databases and manual searches of paper journals, all with a search timeframe from 2016 to 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement and two extensions (CONSORT extension for abstracts and CONSORT harms extension) were used to evaluate the RCTs. The criteria for reporting quality were the evaluation score, reporting proportion, and compliance proportion. The reporting quality of RCTs in the past 5 years was compared by year group. In addition, the RCT reporting quality from 2004 to 2008 was compared with that from 2016 to 2020. ResultsIn total, 226 RCTs were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the total evaluation score or abstract score from 2016 to 2020 (F=0.54, P=0.71; H=1.49, P=0.83). However, there were statistically significant differences in the harm scores from 2016 to 2020 (H=10.78, P=0.03). Further analysis of the items revealed statistically significant differences in the reporting proportion of items 16 and 19 (Fisher’s=8.61, P=0.04; χ2=11.63, P=0.02) and no significant differences in the other items (P>0.05). The reporting proportion of defined primary and secondary outcome indicators, allocation concealment, randomization implementation, outcomes and estimation, generalization, trial registration, and flow chart was <10% in each year. There was a statistically significant difference in the compliance proportion of RCT reporting quality from 2016 to 2020 versus 2004 to 2008 (39.54%±8.92% vs. 34.76%±9.16%, t=6.60, P<0.001). ConclusionThe reporting quality of RCTs in five Chinese psychiatric journals from 2016 to 2020 is better than that from 2004 to 2008. However, the reporting quality of RCTs within the latter 5 years still have reporting deficiencies in important items, and many aspects still are needed to be improved and enhanced.
Evidence mapping is a new type of comprehensive evidence research method that systematically collects, evaluates, and synthesizes existing evidence to clarify research status and gaps, thereby promoting scientific research and decision-making. After nearly 20 years of development, the methodology of evidence mapping has been continuously improved, and has gained wide attention and recognition from the international community. China has paid much attention to evidence mapping at an early stage, but there are relatively few theoretical and practical researches, and the concept definition is inconsistent. This paper introduces the methodology of evidence mapping production and reporting for researchers to use for reference, with a view to further promoting the research and development of evidence mapping in China.
ObjectiveTo get known of the application of Preferred Items of Systematic Review and Meta Analysis (PRISMA). MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 10, 2013), CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI, to collect relevant literature about the application of PRISMA during 2009-2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and then bibliometric analysis was performed using Excel software. ResultsWe finally included 175 papers, including 26 conference abstracts and 149 full texts. The results of bibliometric analysis of full texts showed that, they were published in 118 journals, and PRISMA official website announced that 176 journals endorsed the application of PRISMA. According to study type, there were 111 systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) for development and reporting, 20 overviews of SRs for reporting quality assessments, 7 versions of PRISMA interpretation, and 11 articles of other kinds. In 131 SRs/MAs as well as overviews, the studies about western medicine accounted for 77.8%, followed by public health (8.4%), and traditional Chinese medicine (4.6%). ConclusionThe application of PRISMA statement is still at the first phase and mainly confined to the field of western medicine, which needs more attention and understanding. Thus, it's necessary to interpret and disseminate the PRISMA statement.
Adherence to reporting guidelines contributes to report methodology and outcomes of research distinctly and transparently. There are some checklists with specific study types related to surgery on the EQUATOR Network’s website. However, the IDEAL framework focuses on stepwise evaluation of surgical innovation through all stages with some key elements, which those existing guidelines may not mention. This likely results in the inaccuracy in reporting in studies attempting to follow the IDEAL recommendations and suggests a pressing need for IDEAL reporting guidelines. Considering these limitations, the IDEAL developed the IDEAL reporting guidelines between October 2018 and May 2019. The paper aimed to provide interpretation of IDEAL reporting guideline, and promote its understanding and use among Chinese researchers.
ObjectiveTo explore low-seniority nurses' attitudes regarding adverse events reporting. MethodA total of 200 low-seniority nurses were investigated with the Chinese version of Reporting of Clinical Adverse Events Scale from October to December 2013. Epidata software was used to collect and manage data and SPSS 17.0 software was applied to analyze the collected data. ResultsThe nurses who once witnessed or experienced adverse events accounted for 76%, of whom 74.3% reported adverse events. The mean score of reporting of clinical adverse events among low-seniority nurses was 48.5±7.2. Age was positively associated with the global scores of reporting of clinical adverse events, when compared with other variables (r=0.20, P=0.01). ConclusionsOverall, low-seniority nurses' attitudes toward reporting adverse events are negative. Age is positively associated with attitudes toward reporting adverse events. Therefore, a non-punitive culture should be established and an efficient reporting system is good to enhance the quality of care.
In recent years, the number of randomized controlled trials using cohorts and routinely collected data (e.g., electronic health records, administrative databases, and health registries) has increased. Such trials can ease the challenges of conducting research and save cost and time. Accordingly, to standardize such trials and increase the transparency and completeness of research reports, an international panel of experts developed the CONSORT-ROUTINE (2021) reporting guideline. The reporting guideline was published in 2021 in the BMJ. To help understand and formally apply the reporting guideline and improve the overall quality of this type of study, the present paper introduced and interpreted the development process and reporting checklist of the CONSORT-ROUTINE.
ObjectivesTo assess the methodological and reporting quality of surgical meta-analyses published in English in 2014.MethodsAll meta-analyses investigating surgical procedures published in 2014 were selected from PubMed and EMbase. The characteristics of these meta-analyses were collected, and their reporting and methodological quality were assessed by the PRISMA and AMSTAR, respectively. Independent predictive factors associated with these two qualities were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsA total of 197 meta-analyses covering 10 surgical subspecialties were included. The mean PRISMA and AMSTAR score (by items) were 22.2±2.4 and 7.8±1.2, respectively, and a positive linear correlation was found between them with a R2 of 0.754. Those meta-analyses conducted by the first authors who had previously published meta-analysis was significantly higher in reporting and methodological quality than those who had not (P<0.001). Meanwhile, there were also significant differences in these reporting (P<0.001) and methodological (P<0.001) quality between studies published in Q1 ranked journals and (Q2+Q3) ranked jounals. On multivariate analyses, region of origin (non-Asiavs. Asia), publishing experience of first authors (ever vs. never), rank of publishing journals (Q1 vs. Q2+Q3), and preregistration (presence vs. absence) were associated with better reporting and methodologic quality, independently.ConclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of current surgical meta-analyses remained suboptimal, and first authors' experience and ranking of publishing journals were independently associated with both qualities. Preregistration may be an effective measure to improve the quality of meta-analysis, which deserves more attention from future meta-analysis reviewers.
Objective To collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, so as to provide support for the standardized publish and spread of those guidelines. Methods Such databases as Ovid MEDLINE (1996-2010) and EMbase (till April, 2010) were searched with the terms of “guideline”, “report”, “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” to collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The irrelevant literatures (e.g. systematic review of a specific disease, clinical guideline for a certain disease, and other literatures focusing on the methodology of systematic review without mentioning reporting guideline) were excluded by reading the abstracts and titles, and then the further verification was done after the full-texts had been read. The contents about how to report a systematic review or meta-analyses were extracted from the included studies which were classified by its form of the original research (e.g. randomized controlled trial, observational study, diagnostic trial, etc.). Results Primary search ended up with 285 literatures, and 26 literatures of which were included. Among the included literatures about the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, eight were about RCTs, two about non-RCTs, two about observational study, no literature about diagnostic trial, one about animal experiment, two about report searching strategy, five about quality assessment, six about the influence on quality, and the other two about the update of guidelines. Conclusion The report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considerable in number, among which the QUOROM and its updated version PRISMA are relatively mature and widely applied. Report guidelines are beneficial to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and the report guideline focusing on specific field is needs to be formulate.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals in 2015.MethodsCBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were searched to collect clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals from January, 2015 to December, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines were evaluated by the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT). Excel software was used for data analysis.ResultsA total of 74 clinical practice guidelines were included. It was found that among the seven domains of RIGHT, the reporting quality of basic information and background domains were acceptable. There were fewer problems in the domain of evidence and recommendation. There were many deficiencies in three domains, such as review and quality assurance, funding and the declaration/management of interests and other information.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals in 2015 is low, and the full reporting rate of clinical practice guidelines need to be improved. It is suggested that guideline developers construct strict guidelines for the development and report the guidelines with international standard, thus improving the quality of the clinical practice guidelines.