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:	Medical Publishing and Peer Review
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

Ejemplares similares

Professional medical writing support and the quality, ethics and timeliness of clinical trial reporting: a systematic review
por: Evuarherhe, Obaro, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Poor adherence of randomised trials in surgery to CONSORT guidelines for non-pharmacological treatments (NPT): a cross-sectional study
por: Nagendran, Myura, et al.
Publicado: (2013)

A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials
por: Chauvin, Anthony, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
por: Speich, Benjamin, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Awareness and enforcement of guidelines for publishing industry-sponsored medical research among publication professionals: the Global Publication Survey
por: Wager, Elizabeth, et al.
Publicado: (2014)

Supporting patient and public partners in writing lay summaries of scientific evidence in healthcare: a scoping review protocol
por: Zarshenas, Sareh, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Open access policies of leading medical journals: a cross-sectional study
por: Ellison, Tim S, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Professional medical writing support and the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals
por: Mills, Ira, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers
por: Rohwer, Anke, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Plagiarism in research: a survey of African medical journals
por: Rohwer, Anke, et al.
Publicado: (2018)

Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials
por: Schroter, Sara, et al.
Publicado: (2012)

The STROBE extensions: protocol for a qualitative assessment of content and a survey of endorsement
por: Sharp, Melissa K, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review
por: Shahzad, Rida, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Validity of sample sizes in publications of randomised controlled trials on the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: cross-sectional evaluation
por: Tulka, Sabrina, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis
por: Hays, Meredith, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials: a randomised controlled trial
por: Blanco, David, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus
por: Bassler, Dirk, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for early phase dose-finding clinical trials: the DEFINE (DosE-FIndiNg Extensions) study protocol
por: Espinasse, Aude, et al.
Publicado: (2023)

Peer Reviewed Evaluation of Registered End-Points of Randomised Trials (the PRE-REPORT study): a stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial
por: Jones, Christopher W, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial
por: Jones, Christopher W, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Protocol for a meta-research study of protocols for diet or nutrition-related trials published in indexed journals: general aspects of study design, rationale and reporting limitations
por: Silva, Flávia Moraes, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year
por: Ellingson, Mallory K., et al.
Publicado: (2021)

Cross-sectional study of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 studies: discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation
por: Bero, Lisa, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

Involving clinical experts in prioritising topics for health technology assessment: a randomised controlled trial
por: Cook, Andrew, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

Data-sharing recommendations in biomedical journals and randomised controlled trials: an audit of journals following the ICMJE recommendations
por: Siebert, Maximilian, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees
por: Wilkinson, Tracey A, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers’ perceptions of clinical educational articles: a randomised controlled trial
por: Schroter, Sara, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers' perceptions of clinical educational articles: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
por: Schroter, Sara, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research
por: Superchi, Cecilia, et al.
Publicado: (2020)

Reporting guidelines for health research: protocol for a cross-sectional analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library
por: Catalá-López, Ferrán, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Cross-sectional study of Pfizer-sponsored clinical trials: assessment of time to publication and publication history
por: Mooney, LaVerne A, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Assessing the impact of predatory journals on policy and guidance documents: a cross-sectional study protocol
por: Brandts-Longtin, Olivier, et al.
Publicado: (2022)

Reporting of retrospective registration in clinical trial publications: a cross-sectional study of German trials
por: Haslberger, Martin, et al.
Publicado: (2023)

Thinker, Soldier, Scribe: cross-sectional study of researchers' roles and author order in the Annals of Internal Medicine
por: Perneger, Thomas V, et al.
Publicado: (2017)

The impact of a streamlined funding application process on application time: two cross-sectional surveys of Australian researchers
por: Barnett, Adrian G, et al.
Publicado: (2015)

Data sharing through an NIH central database repository: a cross-sectional survey of BioLINCC users
por: Ross, Joseph S, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Reporting quality of abstracts of trials published in top five pain journals: a protocol for a systematic survey
por: Sriganesh, Kamath, et al.
Publicado: (2016)

Quality of reporting of outcomes in trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure ulcers in adults: a protocol for a systematic survey
por: Miranda, Jessica Steffany, et al.
Publicado: (2019)

Results availability and timeliness of registered COVID-19 clinical trials: interim cross-sectional results from the DIRECCT study
por: Salholz-Hillel, Maia, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review
por: Misra, Vaidehi, et al.
Publicado: (2021)

Cannot write session to /tmp/vufind_sessions/sess_hg6ckukd0jqbj9bmo8m524ttef