scholarly journals The Current Status of Quality of Reporting in Acupuncture Treatment Case Reports: An Analysis of the Core Journal in Korea

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeongjoo Kim ◽  
Yoon-Ji Eom ◽  
Ye-Seul Lee ◽  
Dongwoo Nam ◽  
Younbyoung Chae
Keyword(s):  
Acupuncture Treatment ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Core Journal ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
The Core ◽  
Korean Journal ◽  
Eligible Case ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Objectives. The present study aimed to evaluate the overall quality of case reports concerning acupuncture treatment in Korea. Methods. We selected a representative Korean journal and retrieved eligible case reports on acupuncture treatment published from 2009 to 2015. We assessed the quality of reporting based on CAse REport (CARE) and STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) guideline checklists. Results. A total of 93 eligible case reports of acupuncture treatment were identified among the 107 articles screened. Overall quality of reporting in the case reports was generally acceptable (75.4% on CARE, 67.7% on STRICTA), but several crucial items remained substantially underreported. Conclusions. Endorsement of the CARE and STRICTA guidelines is needed to improve the completeness of reporting. Our findings will be helpful in developing a more appropriate reporting guideline for case reports in acupuncture treatment.

scholarly journals Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarissa F. D. Carneiro ◽  
Victor G. S. Queiroz ◽  
Thiago C. Moulin ◽  
Carlos A. M. Carvalho ◽  
Clarissa B. Haas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Time Lag ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Journal Publication ◽  
Similar Range ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Abstract Background Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader’s ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. Methods In this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals. Results Peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication. Conclusions Our results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.

scholarly journals Revised Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (Stricta): Extending the Consort Statement

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh MacPherson ◽  
Douglas G Altman ◽  
Richard Hammerschlag ◽  
Youping Li ◽  
Taixiang Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Expert Panel ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Consort Statement ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
The Consort Statement

The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) were published in five journals in 2001 and 2002. These guidelines, in the form of a checklist and explanations for use by authors and journal editors, were designed to improve reporting of acupuncture trials, particularly the interventions, thereby facilitating their interpretation and replication. Subsequent reviews of the application and impact of STRICTA have highlighted the value of STRICTA as well as scope for improvements and revision. To manage the revision process a collaboration between the STRICTA Group, the CONSORT Group and the Chinese Cochrane Centre was developed in 2008. An expert panel with 47 participants was convened that provided electronic feedback on a revised draft of the checklist. At a subsequent face-to-face meeting in Freiburg, a group of 21 participants further revised the STRICTA checklist and planned dissemination. The new STRICTA checklist, which is an official extension of CONSORT, includes 6 items and 17 subitems. These set out reporting guidelines for the acupuncture rationale, the details of needling, the treatment regimen, other components of treatment, the practitioner background and the control or comparator interventions. In addition, and as part of this revision process, the explanations for each item have been elaborated, and examples of good reporting for each item are provided. In addition, the word ‘controlled’ in STRICTA is replaced by ‘clinical’, to indicate that STRICTA is applicable to a broad range of clinical evaluation designs, including uncontrolled outcome studies and case reports. It is intended that the revised STRICTA checklist, in conjunction with both the main CONSORT statement and extension for non-pharmacological treatment, will raise the quality of reporting of clinical trials of acupuncture.

scholarly journals Highlights of this issue

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. i-ii
Author(s):  
Jayakumar Menon ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Skills ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Antenatal Depression ◽  
First Episode Psychosis ◽  
First Episode ◽  
The Core ◽  
Episode Psychosis

Clinical psychiatry has always been more accommodative of the divergent methods of scientific enquiry and focus is back on enhancing the core clinical skills in Psychiatry. We are re-discovering the values of single case reports, case series as much as we look forward to systematic reviews. The standardisation of reporting with the acceptance of guidelines (eg.Equator Network) has helped immensely in ensuring transparency and quality of health research. In this issue of the journal, we have articles that cover diverse areas like First Episode Psychosis, Sleep Disorders, Interface of SLE and Psychiatry, medication adherence in depression, antenatal depression, and epigenetics.

Bias in reporting of endpoints of efficacy and toxicity in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for women with breast cancer (BC).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6043-6043
Author(s):  
Francisco Emilio Vera Badillo ◽  
Roman Shapiro ◽  
Alberto Ocana ◽  
Eitan Amir ◽  
Ian Tannock
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Funding Source ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Rational Therapy ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Background Phase ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

6043 Background: Phase III RCTs are designed to assess clinically important differences in endpoints that reflect benefit to patients. Accurate and unbiased reporting is essential to guide rational therapy. Here we evaluate the quality of reporting of the primary endpoint (PE) and of toxicity in RCTs for BC. Methods: PUBMED was searched from 1995-2011 to identify RCTs for BC. Scales for assessing bias in reporting of the PE and of toxicity were developed. For the PE, scales assessed whether the concluding statement of the abstract (CSAbs) was (a) based on the PE, (b) described appropriately a statistically positive or negative result for the PE, or (c) was based on secondary endpoints. Bias and completeness of reporting of toxicity was assessed using a hierarchy scale of whether reporting occurred in the CSAbs, elsewhere in the abstract, in the discussion of the article or only in the results. Association of bias with Journal Impact Factor (JIF); changes in the PE compared to protocol information in clinicaltrials.gov and funding source was also evaluated. Results: 164 trials were evaluated; 33% showed bias in reporting of the PE. The PE was more likely to be reported in the CSAbs if statistically significant [OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.9-14.3, p=0.001]. A statistically negative PE was not reported in the CSAbs in 27% of trials. Of the 30 trials where protocol information was available in clinicaltrials.gov, there were non-significant associations for the PE to show a positive result if had been changed, and for greater bias in reporting the PE if it was unchanged. 67% of studies showed bias in reporting of toxicity. Only 14% mentioned toxicity in CSAbs. When the PE was positive, bias in reporting of toxicity was more common [OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0-3.9, p=0.04]. There was no apparent association between bias in reporting of either the PE or toxicity and JIF or funding source, but a non-significant association between change in the PE and industry funding. Conclusions: Bias in reporting of the PE is common especially for studies with a negative PE. Reporting of toxicity is poor especially for studies with a positive PE. Changing of the PE appears to be a strategy to increase the likelihood of observing a statistically significant result.

scholarly journals Case Reporting in Homeopathy—An Overview of Guidelines and Scientific Tools

Homeopathy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Teut ◽  
Robbert A. van Haselen ◽  
Lex Rutten ◽  
Chetna Deep Lamba ◽  
Gerhard Bleul ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Central Importance ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
The Past ◽  
Case Documentation ◽  
Scientific Value ◽  
Based Medicine

AbstractCase reports have been of central importance to the development of homeopathy over the past 200 years. With a special focus on homeopathy, we give an overview on guidelines and tools that may help to improve the quality of case reports. Reporting guidelines such as CARE (Case Report), HOM-CASE (Homeopathic Clinical Case Reports), and the WissHom Documentation Standard help to improve the quality of reporting and strengthen the scientific value of a case report. Additional scientific tools such as prospective outcome assessment, prognostic factor research, cognition-based medicine, and the Modified Naranjo Criteria for Homeopathy (MONARCH) score may be helpful in improving case documentation and evaluation.

scholarly journals Using the CONSORT statement to evaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised trials: a cross-sectional review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e032024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Vassar ◽  
Sam Jellison ◽  
Hannah Wendelbo ◽  
Cole Wayant ◽  
Harrison Gray ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Consort Statement ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Consort Statement ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Poor Reporting ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

ObjectivesEvaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.SettingNot applicable.ParticipantsRCTs identified using a PubMed search of 15 addiction journals and a 5-year cross-section.Outcome measuresCompleteness of reporting.ResultsOur analysis of 394 addiction RCTs found that the mean number of CONSORT items reported was 19.2 (SD 5.2), out of a possible 31. Twelve items were reported in <50% of RCTs; similarly, 12 items were reported in >75% of RCTs. Journal endorsement of CONSORT was found to improve the number of CONSORT items reported.ConclusionsPoor reporting quality may prohibit readers from critically appraising the methodological quality of addiction trials. We recommend journal endorsement of CONSORT since our study and those previous have shown that CONSORT endorsement improves the quality of reporting.

scholarly journals Assessment of the Quality of Case Reports in the Journal of Acupuncture Research Using the CARE and STRICTA Guidelines

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 224-232
Author(s):  
Eun-Young Nam ◽  
Ji Hye Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Needle Insertion ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Disease Condition ◽  
Care Guidelines ◽  
Acupuncture Research

The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of the case reports in the Journal of Acupuncture Research (JAR). All case reports were retrieved from November 2017 to June 2020. There were 19 case reports included in this assessment based on the case report (CARE) guidelines and case report and standards for reporting interventions in clinical trials of acupuncture (STRICTA) guidelines. The overall quality of reporting was relatively high (83.08% on Case Report guidelines and 77.78% on Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture guidelines), but several crucial items remained substantially underreported, such as identifying as a case report (keywords), patient information and perspective, clinical findings, diagnostic assessment, and intervention information. In 18 out of 19 included case reports of acupuncturerelated interventions, several items remained considerably underreported such as acupuncture regimen variation, depth of needle insertion, response sought, and experience of acupuncturists. In the classification by disease, condition, or syndrome, 13 out of 19 included case reports were for musculoskeletal disorders (68.4%), which is the main clinical medical field of Korean medicine services. The results of this study may help develop more appropriate reporting guidelines for case reports published in JAR.

scholarly journals Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarissa F. D. Carneiro ◽  
Victor G. S. Queiroz ◽  
Thiago C. Moulin ◽  
Carlos A. M. Carvalho ◽  
Clarissa B. Haas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Time Lag ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Journal Publication ◽  
Similar Range ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

AbstractBackgroundPreprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader’s ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings.MethodsIn this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals.ResultsPeer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication.ConclusionsOur results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.

scholarly journals The Quality of Reporting of Cohort, Case-Control Studies in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine

2012 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mi Ra Kim ◽  
Min Young Kim ◽  
Soo Young Kim ◽  
In Hong Hwang ◽  
Yeo Jung Yoon
Keyword(s):  
Family Medicine ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Korean Journal
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document