Cargando…

Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review

BACKGROUND: With increasing attention put on the methodology of reporting guidelines, Moher et al. conducted a review of reporting guidelines up to December 2009. Information gaps appeared on many aspects. Therefore, in 2010, the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines was de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Xiaoqin, Chen, Yaolong, Yang, Nan, Deng, Wei, Wang, Qi, Li, Nan, Yao, Liang, Wei, Dang, Chen, Gen, Yang, Kehu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4579604/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26395179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0069-z
_version_ 1782391284442333184
author Wang, Xiaoqin
Chen, Yaolong
Yang, Nan
Deng, Wei
Wang, Qi
Li, Nan
Yao, Liang
Wei, Dang
Chen, Gen
Yang, Kehu
author_facet Wang, Xiaoqin
Chen, Yaolong
Yang, Nan
Deng, Wei
Wang, Qi
Li, Nan
Yao, Liang
Wei, Dang
Chen, Gen
Yang, Kehu
author_sort Wang, Xiaoqin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: With increasing attention put on the methodology of reporting guidelines, Moher et al. conducted a review of reporting guidelines up to December 2009. Information gaps appeared on many aspects. Therefore, in 2010, the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines was developed. With more than four years passed and a considerable investment was put into reporting guideline development, a large number of new, updated, and expanded reporting guidelines have become available since January 2010. We aimed to systematically review the reporting guidelines published since January 2010, and investigate the application of the Guidance. METHODS: We systematically searched databases including the Cochrane Methodology Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, and retrieved EQUATOR and the website (if available) to find reporting guidelines as well as their accompanying documents. We screened the titles and abstracts resulting from searches and extracted data. We focused on the methodology and reporting of the included guidelines, and described information with a series of tables and narrative summaries. Data were summarized descriptively using frequencies, proportions, and medians as appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty-eight and 32 reporting guidelines were retrieved from databases and EQUATOR network, respectively. Reporting guidelines were designed for a broad spectrum of types of research. A considerable number of reporting guidelines were published and updated in recent years. Methods of initial items were given in 45 (75 %) guidelines. Thirty-eight (63 %) guidelines reported they have reached consensus, and 35 (58 %) described their consensus methods. Only 9 (15 %) guidelines followed the Guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Only few guidelines were developed complying with the Guidance. More attention should be paid to the quality of reporting guidelines. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0069-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4579604
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45796042015-09-24 Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review Wang, Xiaoqin Chen, Yaolong Yang, Nan Deng, Wei Wang, Qi Li, Nan Yao, Liang Wei, Dang Chen, Gen Yang, Kehu BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: With increasing attention put on the methodology of reporting guidelines, Moher et al. conducted a review of reporting guidelines up to December 2009. Information gaps appeared on many aspects. Therefore, in 2010, the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines was developed. With more than four years passed and a considerable investment was put into reporting guideline development, a large number of new, updated, and expanded reporting guidelines have become available since January 2010. We aimed to systematically review the reporting guidelines published since January 2010, and investigate the application of the Guidance. METHODS: We systematically searched databases including the Cochrane Methodology Register, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, and retrieved EQUATOR and the website (if available) to find reporting guidelines as well as their accompanying documents. We screened the titles and abstracts resulting from searches and extracted data. We focused on the methodology and reporting of the included guidelines, and described information with a series of tables and narrative summaries. Data were summarized descriptively using frequencies, proportions, and medians as appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty-eight and 32 reporting guidelines were retrieved from databases and EQUATOR network, respectively. Reporting guidelines were designed for a broad spectrum of types of research. A considerable number of reporting guidelines were published and updated in recent years. Methods of initial items were given in 45 (75 %) guidelines. Thirty-eight (63 %) guidelines reported they have reached consensus, and 35 (58 %) described their consensus methods. Only 9 (15 %) guidelines followed the Guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Only few guidelines were developed complying with the Guidance. More attention should be paid to the quality of reporting guidelines. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0069-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-09-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4579604/ /pubmed/26395179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0069-z Text en © Wang et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wang, Xiaoqin
Chen, Yaolong
Yang, Nan
Deng, Wei
Wang, Qi
Li, Nan
Yao, Liang
Wei, Dang
Chen, Gen
Yang, Kehu
Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review
title Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review
title_full Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review
title_fullStr Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review
title_short Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review
title_sort methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4579604/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26395179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0069-z
work_keys_str_mv AT wangxiaoqin methodologyandreportingqualityofreportingguidelinessystematicreview
AT chenyaolong methodologyandreportingqualityofreportingguidelinessystematicreview
AT yangnan methodologyandreportingqualityofreportingguidelinessystematicreview
AT dengwei methodologyandreportingqualityofreportingguidelinessystematicreview
AT wangqi methodologyandreportingqualityofreportingguidelinessystematicreview
AT linan methodologyandreportingqualityofreportingguidelinessystematicreview
AT yaoliang methodologyandreportingqualityofreportingguidelinessystematicreview
AT weidang methodologyandreportingqualityofreportingguidelinessystematicreview
AT chengen methodologyandreportingqualityofreportingguidelinessystematicreview
AT yangkehu methodologyandreportingqualityofreportingguidelinessystematicreview