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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chauvin, Anthony, Moher, David, Altman, Doug, Schriger, David L, Alam, Sabina, Hopewell, Sally, Shanahan, Daniel R, Recchioni, Alessandro, Ravaud, Philippe, Boutron, Isabelle
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