4.6 Review

Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 64, 期 7, 页码 718-742

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.013

关键词

Systematic review; Reporting guidelines; Research methodology

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. Cancer Research UK
  3. University of Ottawa Research Chair
  4. Family Health International
  5. MRC [MC_qA137931] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Medical Research Council [MC_qA137931] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe the process of development, content, and methods of implementation of reporting guidelines for health research. Study Design and Setting: A systematic review of publications describing health research reporting guidelines developed using consensus. Results: Eighty-one reporting guidelines for health research were included in the review. The largest number of guidelines do not focus on a specific study type (n = 35; 43%), whereas those that do primarily refer to reporting of randomized controlled trials (n = 16; 35%). Most of the guidelines (n = 76; 94%) include a checklist of recommended reporting items, with a median of 21 checklist items (range: 5-64 items). Forty-seven (58%) reporting guidelines were classified as new guidance. Explanation documents were developed for 11 (14%) reporting guidelines. Reporting-guideline developers provided little information about the guideline development process. Developers of 50 (62%) reporting guidelines encouraged endorsement, most commonly by including guidelines in journal instructions to authors (n = 18; 36%). Conclusions: Reporting-guideline developers need to endeavor to maximize the quality of their product. Recently developed guidance is likely to facilitate more robust guideline development. Journal editors can be more confident in endorsing reporting guidelines that have followed these approaches. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据