Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review.

Background: Cancer prognostic biomarkers have shown disappointing clinical applicability. The objective of this study was to classify and estimate how study results are overinterpreted and misreported in prognostic factor studies in oncology.

Methods: This systematic review focused on 17 oncology journals with an impact factor above 7.

Ten simple rules for measuring the impact of workshops.

Workshops are used to explore a specific topic, to transfer knowledge, to solve identified problems, or to create something new. In funded research projects and other research endeavours, workshops are the mechanism used to gather the wider project, community, or interested people together around a particular topic. However, natural questions arise: how do we measure the impact of these workshops? Do we know whether they are meeting the goals and objectives we set for them? What indicators should we use? In response to these questions, this paper will outline rules that will improve the measurement of the impact of workshops.

Reporting guidelines for oncology research: helping to maximise the impact of your research.

Many reports of health research omit important information needed to assess their methodological robustness and clinical relevance. Without clear and complete reporting, it is not possible to identify flaws or biases, reproduce successful interventions, or use the findings in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The EQUATOR Network (http://www.

GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

Background: While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.

Objective: To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.

Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines.

Introduction: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is inconsistently reported in health and social care research. Improving the quality of how PPI is reported is critical in developing a higher quality evidence base to gain a better insight into the methods and impact of PPI. This paper describes the methods used to develop and gain consensus on guidelines for reporting PPI in research studies (updated version of the Guidance for Reporting Patient and Public Involvement (GRIPP2)).

A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools.

Background: Assessment of the quality of included studies is an essential component of any systematic review. A formal quality assessment is facilitated by using a structured tool. There are currently no guidelines available for researchers wanting to develop a new quality assessment tool.

GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

 While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why. To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.

Do declarative titles affect readers' perceptions of research findings? A randomized trial.

Background: Many journals prohibit the use of declarative titles that state study findings, yet a few journals encourage or even require them. We compared the effects of a declarative versus a descriptive title on readers' perceptions about the strength of evidence in a research abstract describing a randomized trial.

Methods: Study participants (medical or dental students or doctors attending lectures) read two abstracts describing studies of a fictitious treatment (Anticox) for a fictitious condition (Green's syndrome).

A new forum for research on research integrity and peer review.

This editorial explains why we are launching , a new open-access journal that will provide a home to research on ethics, reporting, and evaluation of research. We discuss how the idea to launch this journal came about and identify the gaps in knowledge where we would like to encourage more research and interdisciplinary discussion. We are particularly keen to receive submissions presenting actual research that will increase our understanding and suggest potential solutions to issues related to peer review, study reporting, and research and publication ethics.

Interventions to reduce waiting times for elective procedures.

Background: Long waiting times for elective healthcare procedures may cause distress among patients, may have adverse health consequences and may be perceived as inappropriate delivery and planning of health care.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing waiting times for elective care, both diagnostic and therapeutic.

Search Methods: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1946-), EMBASE (1947-), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ABI Inform, the Canadian Research Index, the Science, Social Sciences and Humanities Citation Indexes, a series of databases via Proquest: Dissertations & Theses (including UK & Ireland), EconLit, PAIS (Public Affairs International), Political Science Collection, Nursing Collection, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts.

Get the content right: following reporting guidelines will make your research paper more complete, transparent and usable.

Substantial evidence demonstrates widespread shortcomings in the reporting of health research publications. Reporting guidelines represent an effective tool to help improve the completeness and transparency of published papers that are much needed for their future use. Examples of key reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, COREQ, ENTREQ, PRISMA, STARD, and SQUIRE) are introduced here together with other resources supporting the writing of high quality research publications that are provided by the EQUATOR Network (www.

Compliance with clinical trial registration and reporting guidelines by Latin American and Caribbean journals.

The objective of this study was to determine to what extent Latin American and Caribbean biomedical journals have endorsed and complied with clinical trial registration and reporting guidelines. A search of randomized clinical trials was carried out using the LILACS database. The randomized clinical trials identified through the search were assessed to determine whether trial registration and CONSORT guidance was mentioned.

Reporting medical research.

Accurate, complete and timely publication of research studies is an integral part of a responsible research conduct. Following the reporting guidelines helps in preparing high quality research papers, facilitates peer review, and increases the chances of paper acceptance by a suitable journal. The EQUATOR Network website (www.

Does journal endorsement of reporting guidelines influence the completeness of reporting of health research? A systematic review protocol.

Background: Reporting of health research is often inadequate and incomplete. Complete and transparent reporting is imperative to enable readers to assess the validity of research findings for use in healthcare and policy decision-making. To this end, many guidelines, aimed at improving the quality of health research reports, have been developed for reporting a variety of research types.

Reporting clinical research: guidance to encourage accurate and transparent research reporting.

To encourage accurate, complete, and transparent reporting of research studies we provide a brief overview of generic guidelines for reporting the main types of clinical research: randomised trials, observational studies in epidemiology, and systematic reviews. These and many other guidelines developed to help authors to achieve the highest standards in their research publications are available on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network website (www.equator-network.

Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review.

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.

Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network.

Although current electronic methods of scientific publishing offer increased opportunities for publishing all research studies and describing them in sufficient detail, health research literature still suffers from many shortcomings. These shortcomings seriously undermine the value and utility of the literature and waste scarce resources invested in the research. In recent years there have been several positive steps aimed at improving this situation, such as a strengthening of journals' policies on research publication and the wide requirement to register clinical trials.

Tamoxifen for relapse of ovarian cancer.

Background: Tamoxifen is an important drug for treating breast cancer. Ovarian cancer cells are known to possess receptors for hormones and may thus also respond to tamoxifen.

Objectives: Tamoxifen is used to treat breast cancer in women whose tumours have oestrogen receptors.

Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines.

David Moher and colleagues from the EQUATOR network offer guidance and recommended steps for developing health research reporting guidelines.

A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research.

Growing evidence demonstrates widespread deficiencies in the reporting of health research studies. The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that aims to enhance the reliability and value of the published health research literature. EQUATOR provides resources, education and training to facilitate good research reporting and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of robust reporting guidelines.

Responsible reporting of health research studies: transparent, complete, accurate and timely.

Complete, accurate and transparent reporting is an integral part of responsible research conduct. However, many studies have shown that health research publications frequently lack crucial information. Reporting guidelines like the CONSORT Statement help to improve the quality of research reports.