Two sets of qualitative research reporting guidelines: An analysis of the shortfalls

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia King
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Research Reporting

scholarly journals Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID): an expert consensus-based statement

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayakumar Jayaraman ◽  
Vineet Dhar ◽  
Kevin J. Donly ◽  
Ekta Priya ◽  
Daniela P. Raggio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Pediatric Dentistry ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Expert Consensus ◽  
Reporting Standards ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Executive Group

Abstract Background Reporting guidelines for different study designs are currently available to report studies with accuracy and transparency. There is a need to develop supplementary guideline items that are specific to areas within Pediatric Dentistry. This study aims to develop Reporting stAndards for research in PedIatric Dentistry (RAPID) guidelines using a pre-defined expert consensus-based Delphi process. Methods The development of the RAPID guidelines was based on the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. Following a comprehensive search of the literature, the Executive Group identified ten themes in Pediatric Dentistry and compiled a draft checklist of items under each theme. The themes were categorized as: General, Oral Medicine, Pathology and Radiology, Children with Special Health Care Needs, Sedation and Hospital Dentistry, Behavior Guidance, Dental Caries, Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, Pulp Therapy, Traumatology, and Interceptive Orthodontics. A RAPID Delphi Group (RDG) was formed comprising of 69 members from 15 countries across six continents. Items were scored using a 9-point rating Likert scale. Items achieving a score of seven and above, marked by at least 70% of RDG members were accepted into the RAPID checklist items. Weighted mean scores were calculated for each item. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and one-way ANOVA was used to calculate the difference in the weighted mean scores between the themes. Results The final RAPID checklist comprised of 128 items that were finalized and approved by the RDG members in the online consensus meeting. The percentage for high scores (scores 7 to 9) ranged from 69.57 to 100% for individual items. The overall weighted mean score of the final items ranged from 7.51 to 8.28 (out of 9) and the difference was statistically significant between the themes (p < 0.05). Conclusions The RAPID statement provides guidance to researchers, authors, reviewers and editors, to ensure that all elements relevant to particular studies are adequately reported.

scholarly journals Research Reporting Guidelines and the New Annals Instructions for Authors

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 500-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Orkin ◽  
W. R. Phillips ◽  
K. C. Stange
Keyword(s):  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Research Reporting

Notions of quality and standards for qualitative research reporting

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 670-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Pearson ◽  
Zoe Jordan ◽  
Craig Lockwood ◽  
Ed Aromataris
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Reporting

scholarly journals META-ANALYSIS OF ECONOMICS RESEARCH REPORTING GUIDELINES

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 390-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.D. Stanley ◽  
Hristos Doucouliagos ◽  
Margaret Giles ◽  
Jost H. Heckemeyer ◽  
Robert J. Johnston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
Economics Research

Review of Research Reporting Guidelines for Radiology Researchers

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 537-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Cronin ◽  
James V. Rawson
Keyword(s):  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Research Reporting

scholarly journals CLARIFY 2021: explanation and elaboration of the Delphi-based guidelines for the reporting of yoga research

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e045812
Author(s):  
Steffany Moonaz ◽  
Daryl Nault ◽  
Holger Cramer ◽  
Lesley Ward
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Application ◽  
Comparative Effectiveness ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Application Study ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
Detailed Explanation ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Effectiveness Studies

BackgroundReporting of yoga research often lacks the detail required for clinical application, study replication, summary research and comparative effectiveness studies.MethodsTo improve the transparency of reporting yoga interventions, and building on the development of previous reporting guidelines, a group of international yoga research stakeholders developed the consensus-based CheckList stAndardising the Reporting of Interventions For Yoga (CLARIFY) guidelines.ResultsThe 21-item CLARIFY checklist outlines the minimum details considered necessary for high-quality reporting of yoga research. This paper provides a detailed explanation of each of the 21 items of the CLARIFY checklist, together with model examples of how to integrate each item into publications of yoga research. The CLARIFY guideline serves as an extension for existing research reporting guidelines, and is flexible for use across all study designs.ConclusionWe strongly encourage the uptake of these reporting guidelines by researchers and journals, to facilitate improvements in the transparency and utility of yoga research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document