Cargando…
Survey of quality and clarity of methods and results reporting in 1 year of intervention studies published in high-impact medical and psychiatric journals
OBJECTIVE: We assessed how well articles in major medical and psychiatric journals followed best reporting practices in presenting results of intervention studies. METHOD: Standardised data collection was used to review studies in high-impact and widely read medical (JAMA, Lancet and New England Jou...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9748970/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36523238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061882 |
_version_ | 1784849941307326464 |
---|---|
author | Ravichandran, Caitlin Babb, Suzann M Ongur, Dost Harris, Peter Q Cohen, Bruce M |
author_facet | Ravichandran, Caitlin Babb, Suzann M Ongur, Dost Harris, Peter Q Cohen, Bruce M |
author_sort | Ravichandran, Caitlin |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: We assessed how well articles in major medical and psychiatric journals followed best reporting practices in presenting results of intervention studies. METHOD: Standardised data collection was used to review studies in high-impact and widely read medical (JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine) and psychiatric (American Journal of Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and Lancet Psychiatry) journals, published between 1 September 2018 and 31 August 2019. Two team members independently reviewed each article. MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was proportion of papers reporting consensus elements required to understand and evaluate the results of the intervention. The secondary outcome measure was comparison of complete and accessible reporting in the major medical versus the major psychiatric journals. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven articles were identified for inclusion. At least 90% of articles in both medical and psychiatric journals included sample size, statistical significance, randomisation method, elements of study flow, and age, sex, and illness severity by randomisation group. Selected elements less frequently reported by either journal type were confidence intervals in the abstract, reported in 93% (95% CI 84% to 97%) of medical journal articles and 58% (95% CI 45% to 69%) of psychiatric journal articles, and sample size method (93%, 95% CI 84% to 97% medical; 69%, 95% CI 57% to 80% psychiatric), race and ethnicity by randomisation group (51%, 95% CI 40% to 63% medical; 73%, 95% CI 60% to 83% psychiatric), and adverse events (94%; 95% CI 86% to 98% medical; 80%, 95% CI 68% to 88% psychiatric) in the main text. CIs were included less often in psychiatric than medical journals (p<0.004 abstract, p=0.04 main text, after multiple-testing correction). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations include standard inclusion of a table specifying the outcome(s) designated as primary, and the sample size, effect size(s), CI(s) and p value(s) corresponding to the primary test(s) for efficacy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9748970 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97489702022-12-15 Survey of quality and clarity of methods and results reporting in 1 year of intervention studies published in high-impact medical and psychiatric journals Ravichandran, Caitlin Babb, Suzann M Ongur, Dost Harris, Peter Q Cohen, Bruce M BMJ Open Medical Publishing and Peer Review OBJECTIVE: We assessed how well articles in major medical and psychiatric journals followed best reporting practices in presenting results of intervention studies. METHOD: Standardised data collection was used to review studies in high-impact and widely read medical (JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine) and psychiatric (American Journal of Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and Lancet Psychiatry) journals, published between 1 September 2018 and 31 August 2019. Two team members independently reviewed each article. MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was proportion of papers reporting consensus elements required to understand and evaluate the results of the intervention. The secondary outcome measure was comparison of complete and accessible reporting in the major medical versus the major psychiatric journals. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven articles were identified for inclusion. At least 90% of articles in both medical and psychiatric journals included sample size, statistical significance, randomisation method, elements of study flow, and age, sex, and illness severity by randomisation group. Selected elements less frequently reported by either journal type were confidence intervals in the abstract, reported in 93% (95% CI 84% to 97%) of medical journal articles and 58% (95% CI 45% to 69%) of psychiatric journal articles, and sample size method (93%, 95% CI 84% to 97% medical; 69%, 95% CI 57% to 80% psychiatric), race and ethnicity by randomisation group (51%, 95% CI 40% to 63% medical; 73%, 95% CI 60% to 83% psychiatric), and adverse events (94%; 95% CI 86% to 98% medical; 80%, 95% CI 68% to 88% psychiatric) in the main text. CIs were included less often in psychiatric than medical journals (p<0.004 abstract, p=0.04 main text, after multiple-testing correction). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations include standard inclusion of a table specifying the outcome(s) designated as primary, and the sample size, effect size(s), CI(s) and p value(s) corresponding to the primary test(s) for efficacy. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9748970/ /pubmed/36523238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061882 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/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, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Medical Publishing and Peer Review Ravichandran, Caitlin Babb, Suzann M Ongur, Dost Harris, Peter Q Cohen, Bruce M Survey of quality and clarity of methods and results reporting in 1 year of intervention studies published in high-impact medical and psychiatric journals |
title | Survey of quality and clarity of methods and results reporting in 1 year of intervention studies published in high-impact medical and psychiatric journals |
title_full | Survey of quality and clarity of methods and results reporting in 1 year of intervention studies published in high-impact medical and psychiatric journals |
title_fullStr | Survey of quality and clarity of methods and results reporting in 1 year of intervention studies published in high-impact medical and psychiatric journals |
title_full_unstemmed | Survey of quality and clarity of methods and results reporting in 1 year of intervention studies published in high-impact medical and psychiatric journals |
title_short | Survey of quality and clarity of methods and results reporting in 1 year of intervention studies published in high-impact medical and psychiatric journals |
title_sort | survey of quality and clarity of methods and results reporting in 1 year of intervention studies published in high-impact medical and psychiatric journals |
topic | Medical Publishing and Peer Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9748970/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36523238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061882 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ravichandrancaitlin surveyofqualityandclarityofmethodsandresultsreportingin1yearofinterventionstudiespublishedinhighimpactmedicalandpsychiatricjournals AT babbsuzannm surveyofqualityandclarityofmethodsandresultsreportingin1yearofinterventionstudiespublishedinhighimpactmedicalandpsychiatricjournals AT ongurdost surveyofqualityandclarityofmethodsandresultsreportingin1yearofinterventionstudiespublishedinhighimpactmedicalandpsychiatricjournals AT harrispeterq surveyofqualityandclarityofmethodsandresultsreportingin1yearofinterventionstudiespublishedinhighimpactmedicalandpsychiatricjournals AT cohenbrucem surveyofqualityandclarityofmethodsandresultsreportingin1yearofinterventionstudiespublishedinhighimpactmedicalandpsychiatricjournals |