Cargando…
State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol
INTRODUCTION: Incomplete or inconsistent reporting remains a major concern in the biomedical literature. Incomplete or inconsistent reporting may yield the published findings unreliable, irreproducible or sometimes misleading. In this study based on evidence from systematic reviews and surveys that...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5372137/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28360252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014749 |
_version_ | 1782518563764961280 |
---|---|
author | Li, Guowei Mbuagbaw, Lawrence Samaan, Zainab Jin, Yanling Nwosu, Ikunna Levine, Mitchell A H Adachi, Jonathan D Thabane, Lehana |
author_facet | Li, Guowei Mbuagbaw, Lawrence Samaan, Zainab Jin, Yanling Nwosu, Ikunna Levine, Mitchell A H Adachi, Jonathan D Thabane, Lehana |
author_sort | Li, Guowei |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Incomplete or inconsistent reporting remains a major concern in the biomedical literature. Incomplete or inconsistent reporting may yield the published findings unreliable, irreproducible or sometimes misleading. In this study based on evidence from systematic reviews and surveys that have evaluated the reporting issues in primary biomedical studies, we aim to conduct a scoping review with focuses on (1) the state-of-the-art extent of adherence to the emerging reporting guidelines in primary biomedical research, (2) the inconsistency between protocols or registrations and full reports and (3) the disagreement between abstracts and full-text articles. METHODS AND ANALYSES: We will use a comprehensive search strategy to retrieve all available and eligible systematic reviews and surveys in the literature. We will search the following electronic databases: Web of Science, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Our outcomes are levels of adherence to reporting guidelines, levels of consistency between protocols or registrations and full reports and the agreement between abstracts and full reports, all of which will be expressed as percentages, quality scores or categorised rating (such as high, medium and low). No pooled analyses will be performed quantitatively given the heterogeneity of the included systematic reviews and surveys. Likewise, factors associated with improved completeness and consistency of reporting will be summarised qualitatively. The quality of the included systematic reviews will be evaluated using AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and relevant conferences. These results may advance our understanding of the extent of incomplete and inconsistent reporting, factors related to improved completeness and consistency of reporting and potential recommendations for various stakeholders in the biomedical community. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5372137 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-53721372017-04-12 State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol Li, Guowei Mbuagbaw, Lawrence Samaan, Zainab Jin, Yanling Nwosu, Ikunna Levine, Mitchell A H Adachi, Jonathan D Thabane, Lehana BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice INTRODUCTION: Incomplete or inconsistent reporting remains a major concern in the biomedical literature. Incomplete or inconsistent reporting may yield the published findings unreliable, irreproducible or sometimes misleading. In this study based on evidence from systematic reviews and surveys that have evaluated the reporting issues in primary biomedical studies, we aim to conduct a scoping review with focuses on (1) the state-of-the-art extent of adherence to the emerging reporting guidelines in primary biomedical research, (2) the inconsistency between protocols or registrations and full reports and (3) the disagreement between abstracts and full-text articles. METHODS AND ANALYSES: We will use a comprehensive search strategy to retrieve all available and eligible systematic reviews and surveys in the literature. We will search the following electronic databases: Web of Science, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Our outcomes are levels of adherence to reporting guidelines, levels of consistency between protocols or registrations and full reports and the agreement between abstracts and full reports, all of which will be expressed as percentages, quality scores or categorised rating (such as high, medium and low). No pooled analyses will be performed quantitatively given the heterogeneity of the included systematic reviews and surveys. Likewise, factors associated with improved completeness and consistency of reporting will be summarised qualitatively. The quality of the included systematic reviews will be evaluated using AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and relevant conferences. These results may advance our understanding of the extent of incomplete and inconsistent reporting, factors related to improved completeness and consistency of reporting and potential recommendations for various stakeholders in the biomedical community. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-03-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5372137/ /pubmed/28360252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014749 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 | Evidence Based Practice Li, Guowei Mbuagbaw, Lawrence Samaan, Zainab Jin, Yanling Nwosu, Ikunna Levine, Mitchell A H Adachi, Jonathan D Thabane, Lehana State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol |
title | State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol |
title_full | State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol |
title_fullStr | State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol |
title_short | State of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol |
title_sort | state of reporting of primary biomedical research: a scoping review protocol |
topic | Evidence Based Practice |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5372137/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28360252 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014749 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT liguowei stateofreportingofprimarybiomedicalresearchascopingreviewprotocol AT mbuagbawlawrence stateofreportingofprimarybiomedicalresearchascopingreviewprotocol AT samaanzainab stateofreportingofprimarybiomedicalresearchascopingreviewprotocol AT jinyanling stateofreportingofprimarybiomedicalresearchascopingreviewprotocol AT nwosuikunna stateofreportingofprimarybiomedicalresearchascopingreviewprotocol AT levinemitchellah stateofreportingofprimarybiomedicalresearchascopingreviewprotocol AT adachijonathand stateofreportingofprimarybiomedicalresearchascopingreviewprotocol AT thabanelehana stateofreportingofprimarybiomedicalresearchascopingreviewprotocol |