Cargando…
A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials
INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications highlighted that interventions were limited and have little impact. This study aims to compare the accuracy of early career peer reviewers who use an innovative o...
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/PMC5640136/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28918414 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017462 |
_version_ | 1783270999099179008 |
---|---|
author | Chauvin, Anthony Moher, David Altman, Doug Schriger, David L Alam, Sabina Hopewell, Sally Shanahan, Daniel R Recchioni, Alessandro Ravaud, Philippe Boutron, Isabelle |
author_facet | Chauvin, Anthony Moher, David Altman, Doug Schriger, David L Alam, Sabina Hopewell, Sally Shanahan, Daniel R Recchioni, Alessandro Ravaud, Philippe Boutron, Isabelle |
author_sort | Chauvin, Anthony |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications highlighted that interventions were limited and have little impact. This study aims to compare the accuracy of early career peer reviewers who use an innovative online tool to the usual peer reviewer process in evaluating the completeness of reporting and switched primary outcomes in completed reports. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cross-sectional study of individual two-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the BioMed Central series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open and Annals of Emergency Medicine and indexed with the publication type ‘Randomised Controlled Trial’. First, we will develop an online tool and training module based (a) on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist and the Explanation and Elaboration document that would be dedicated to junior peer reviewers for assessing the completeness of reporting of key items and (b) the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Outcome Monitoring Project process used to identify switched outcomes in completed reports of the primary results of RCTs when initially submitted. Then, we will compare the performance of early career peer reviewers who use the online tool to the usual peer review process in identifying inadequate reporting and switched outcomes in completed reports of RCTs at initial journal submission. The primary outcome will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript. The secondary outcomes will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript for the CONSORT items and the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio to detect the item as adequately reported and to identify a switch in outcomes. We aim to include 120 RCTs and 120 early career peer reviewers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the INSERM Institutional Review Board (21 January 2016). The study is based on voluntary participation and informed written consent. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03119376. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5640136 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56401362017-10-19 A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials Chauvin, Anthony Moher, David Altman, Doug Schriger, David L Alam, Sabina Hopewell, Sally Shanahan, Daniel R Recchioni, Alessandro Ravaud, Philippe Boutron, Isabelle BMJ Open Medical Publishing and Peer Review INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications highlighted that interventions were limited and have little impact. This study aims to compare the accuracy of early career peer reviewers who use an innovative online tool to the usual peer reviewer process in evaluating the completeness of reporting and switched primary outcomes in completed reports. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cross-sectional study of individual two-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the BioMed Central series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open and Annals of Emergency Medicine and indexed with the publication type ‘Randomised Controlled Trial’. First, we will develop an online tool and training module based (a) on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist and the Explanation and Elaboration document that would be dedicated to junior peer reviewers for assessing the completeness of reporting of key items and (b) the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Outcome Monitoring Project process used to identify switched outcomes in completed reports of the primary results of RCTs when initially submitted. Then, we will compare the performance of early career peer reviewers who use the online tool to the usual peer review process in identifying inadequate reporting and switched outcomes in completed reports of RCTs at initial journal submission. The primary outcome will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript. The secondary outcomes will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript for the CONSORT items and the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio to detect the item as adequately reported and to identify a switch in outcomes. We aim to include 120 RCTs and 120 early career peer reviewers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the INSERM Institutional Review Board (21 January 2016). The study is based on voluntary participation and informed written consent. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03119376. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5640136/ /pubmed/28918414 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017462 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. 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 Chauvin, Anthony Moher, David Altman, Doug Schriger, David L Alam, Sabina Hopewell, Sally Shanahan, Daniel R Recchioni, Alessandro Ravaud, Philippe Boutron, Isabelle A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials |
title | A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials |
title_full | A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials |
title_fullStr | A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials |
title_full_unstemmed | A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials |
title_short | A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials |
title_sort | protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials |
topic | Medical Publishing and Peer Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5640136/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28918414 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017462 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chauvinanthony aprotocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT moherdavid aprotocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT altmandoug aprotocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT schrigerdavidl aprotocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT alamsabina aprotocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT hopewellsally aprotocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT shanahandanielr aprotocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT recchionialessandro aprotocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT ravaudphilippe aprotocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT boutronisabelle aprotocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT chauvinanthony protocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT moherdavid protocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT altmandoug protocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT schrigerdavidl protocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT alamsabina protocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT hopewellsally protocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT shanahandanielr protocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT recchionialessandro protocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT ravaudphilippe protocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials AT boutronisabelle protocolofacrosssectionalstudyevaluatinganonlinetoolforearlycareerpeerreviewersassessingreportsofrandomisedcontrolledtrials |