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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gattrell, William T, Hopewell, Sally, Young, Kate, Farrow, Paul, White, Richard, Wager, Elizabeth, Winchester, Christopher C
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