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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Guowei, Mbuagbaw, Lawrence, Samaan, Zainab, Jin, Yanling, Nwosu, Ikunna, Levine, Mitchell A H, Adachi, Jonathan D, Thabane, Lehana
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