Best practice guidelinesWrite a Scientific Paper (WASP): Guidelines for reporting medical research
Introduction
The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology ranks study designs in medical research hierarchically, based on their level of evidence and their strength and power [1]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) rank first, followed by individual RCTs, followed by nonrandomized trials and observational study designs (e.g. cohort studies and case-control studies), with case studies and expert opinions coming last [1].
The importance of this hierarchy is self-evident: researchers use published papers in order to direct research directions and strategies, clinicians apply such papers in patient management, and governments utilize research to guide preventive and treatment strategies [1,2].
.Several guidelines have been created in order formalise and standardise research methodologies so as to strive to raise the quality of different kinds of studies. These also attempt to ensure that research is reported accurately and transparently.
Section snippets
History of guidelines
Back in 1938, a textbook called The Treatment Of Clinical And Laboratory Data included a chapter describing how medical research ought to be published [3]. In 1988, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) included a statement in the guidelines to authors stating that the statistical methods employed should be described such that a reviewer could verify the reported results [2]. In 1994, the first attempt to create a reporting guideline was made, which eventually laid the
CONSORT
The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials - http://www.consort-statement.org/) guideline deals with randomized controlled trials [6]. The first CONSORT statement was issued in 1996 [7], with the latest version dating to 2010 [8]. CONSORT consists of a 25-item checklist with subcategories: title and abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and other information. This structure is designed to encourage complete reporting and transparent research and influences trial
MOOSE
The MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - http://www.consort-statement.org/downloads) guideline is used for reporting meta-analyses of observational studies [10]. MOOSE commenced as a checklist in 1997 and now comprises a 35-item checklist with the following headings: background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. MOOSE seeks to improve the usefulness of epidemiological meta-analyses by showing more clearly what was done, by who, and why.
PRISMA
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses - http://www.prisma-statement.org) is used for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses [11]. PRISMA was initially the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) statement [12], which was updated to PRISMA in 2005. PRISMA consists of a 27 item checklist: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and funding. PRISMA statement also endorses the use of a flow diagram and strives to
SPIRIT
SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials - http://www.spirit-statement.org) was created in 2007, and is used for the reporting of scientific trial protocols [13]. SPIRIT explicated the requirements for protocols in clinical trials with a list that includes 33 items divided into the following topics: administrative information, introduction, methods, ethics and dissemination, and appendices. SPIRIT has incorporates items from CONSORT in order to facilitate an
STARD
STARD (STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies - http://www.stard-statement.org) reports studies of diagnostic or prognostic accuracy. STARD is inspired by CONSORT, with a checklist of 25 items: title, abstract, keywords, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. A flow diagram is also incorporated [15]. It is claimed that STARD has led to an improvement in the quality of the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies [16].
STROBE
STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology - http://www.strobe-statement.org) was developed in 2004 [17] and is a guideline for reporting observational studies, especially cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. STROBE was also inspired by the CONSORT statement and consists of a 22-item checklist: title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and other information. 18 of the items are identical for the three types of abovementioned
Conclusion
CONSORT and the other guidelines that have ramified from CONSORT have had a positive impact on the quality of reporting of medical research but more can be done [14]. Non-adherence to guidelines may be due to failure of editors and/or reviewers to check said adherence as this is a time-intensive and costly process. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers sets standards for peer reviewing and this includes a call for adherence to guidelines [19]. In this
Acknowledgments
The inspiration for this series of papers arises from the international Write a Scientific Paper course (WASP) [21,22].
Declaration of competing interest
There are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.
References (22)
- et al.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
Int. J. Surg.
(2010) - et al.
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses
Lancet.
(1999 Nov 27) - et al.
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies
Int. J. Surg.
(2014 Dec) - et al.
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
BMJ.
(2004 Jun 19) - et al.
Guidelines for reporting medical research: a critical appraisal
Int. Sch. Res. Notices.
(2016 Mar 22) The Treatment of Clinical and Laboratory Data
(1938)- et al.
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement
JAMA
(1996) - et al.
Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network
BMC Med.
(2010 Dec) - et al.
CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
J. Pharmacol. Pharmacother.
(2010 Jul) - et al.
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials
JAMA.
(1995 Feb 1)