Cargando…
Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study
OBJECTIVES: Authors may choose to work with professional medical writers when writing up their research for publication. We examined the relationship between medical writing support and the quality and timeliness of reporting of the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Cross-secti...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4762118/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26899254 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010329 |
_version_ | 1782417062123012096 |
---|---|
author | Gattrell, William T Hopewell, Sally Young, Kate Farrow, Paul White, Richard Wager, Elizabeth Winchester, Christopher C |
author_facet | Gattrell, William T Hopewell, Sally Young, Kate Farrow, Paul White, Richard Wager, Elizabeth Winchester, Christopher C |
author_sort | Gattrell, William T |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Authors may choose to work with professional medical writers when writing up their research for publication. We examined the relationship between medical writing support and the quality and timeliness of reporting of the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. STUDY SAMPLE: Primary reports of RCTs published in BioMed Central journals from 2000 to 16 July 2014, subdivided into those with medical writing support (n=110) and those without medical writing support (n=123). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of items that were completely reported from a predefined subset of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist (12 items known to be commonly poorly reported), overall acceptance time (from manuscript submission to editorial acceptance) and quality of written English as assessed by peer reviewers. The effect of funding source and publication year was examined. RESULTS: The number of articles that completely reported at least 50% of the CONSORT items assessed was higher for those with declared medical writing support (39.1% (43/110 articles); 95% CI 29.9% to 48.9%) than for those without (21.1% (26/123 articles); 95% CI 14.3% to 29.4%). Articles with declared medical writing support were more likely than articles without such support to have acceptable written English (81.1% (43/53 articles); 95% CI 67.6% to 90.1% vs 47.9% (23/48 articles); 95% CI 33.5% to 62.7%). The median time of overall acceptance was longer for articles with declared medical writing support than for those without (167 days (IQR 114.5–231 days) vs 136 days (IQR 77–193 days)). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of open-access journals, declared professional medical writing support was associated with more complete reporting of clinical trial results and higher quality of written English. Medical writing support may play an important role in raising the quality of clinical trial reporting. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4762118 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47621182016-02-25 Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study Gattrell, William T Hopewell, Sally Young, Kate Farrow, Paul White, Richard Wager, Elizabeth Winchester, Christopher C BMJ Open Medical Publishing and Peer Review OBJECTIVES: Authors may choose to work with professional medical writers when writing up their research for publication. We examined the relationship between medical writing support and the quality and timeliness of reporting of the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. STUDY SAMPLE: Primary reports of RCTs published in BioMed Central journals from 2000 to 16 July 2014, subdivided into those with medical writing support (n=110) and those without medical writing support (n=123). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of items that were completely reported from a predefined subset of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist (12 items known to be commonly poorly reported), overall acceptance time (from manuscript submission to editorial acceptance) and quality of written English as assessed by peer reviewers. The effect of funding source and publication year was examined. RESULTS: The number of articles that completely reported at least 50% of the CONSORT items assessed was higher for those with declared medical writing support (39.1% (43/110 articles); 95% CI 29.9% to 48.9%) than for those without (21.1% (26/123 articles); 95% CI 14.3% to 29.4%). Articles with declared medical writing support were more likely than articles without such support to have acceptable written English (81.1% (43/53 articles); 95% CI 67.6% to 90.1% vs 47.9% (23/48 articles); 95% CI 33.5% to 62.7%). The median time of overall acceptance was longer for articles with declared medical writing support than for those without (167 days (IQR 114.5–231 days) vs 136 days (IQR 77–193 days)). CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of open-access journals, declared professional medical writing support was associated with more complete reporting of clinical trial results and higher quality of written English. Medical writing support may play an important role in raising the quality of clinical trial reporting. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-02-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4762118/ /pubmed/26899254 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010329 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Medical Publishing and Peer Review Gattrell, William T Hopewell, Sally Young, Kate Farrow, Paul White, Richard Wager, Elizabeth Winchester, Christopher C Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study |
title | Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study |
title_full | Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study |
title_fullStr | Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study |
title_full_unstemmed | Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study |
title_short | Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study |
title_sort | professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study |
topic | Medical Publishing and Peer Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4762118/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26899254 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010329 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gattrellwilliamt professionalmedicalwritingsupportandthequalityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialreportingacrosssectionalstudy AT hopewellsally professionalmedicalwritingsupportandthequalityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialreportingacrosssectionalstudy AT youngkate professionalmedicalwritingsupportandthequalityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialreportingacrosssectionalstudy AT farrowpaul professionalmedicalwritingsupportandthequalityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialreportingacrosssectionalstudy AT whiterichard professionalmedicalwritingsupportandthequalityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialreportingacrosssectionalstudy AT wagerelizabeth professionalmedicalwritingsupportandthequalityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialreportingacrosssectionalstudy AT winchesterchristopherc professionalmedicalwritingsupportandthequalityofrandomisedcontrolledtrialreportingacrosssectionalstudy |