目的:评估16项与提高健康研究的质量和透明度(EQUATOR)相关的报告指南是否用于风湿病学出版物。
方法:这是对2019年发表在五本高性能风湿病学期刊上的研究文章的横断面研究。所有文章均进行了1)手动审查,以评估是否建议使用报告指南,以及2)搜索名称和首字母缩略词(例如,CONSORT,STROBE)的16条报告准则。要计算“明智的使用率”,“使用准则的文章数量除以建议使用准则的文章数量。使用描述性统计。
结果:我们审查了5种期刊的895份手稿。693(77%)篇文章使用指南被认为是可取的。50篇文章中使用了报告指南,占总文章的5.6%,占指南指南的7.2%(95%CI:5至9)。对于任何指南,期刊应用指南的建议使用率界限为0.03-0.10,0-0.26对于CONSORT,0.01-0.07对于STROBE,PRISMA为0-0.8,到达者为0-0.14。在这5种期刊中,没有观察到所研究变量的可识别趋势。
结论:考虑到指南是由期刊推广的,并且旨在帮助作者报告相关信息,报告指南的有限使用似乎是违反直觉的。这一发现是否归因于扩散问题,意识,接受,或认为准则的有用性仍有待澄清。
To assess whether 16 of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network-related reporting guidelines were used in rheumatology publications.
This was a cross-sectional study of research articles published in 5 high-performance rheumatology-focused journals in 2019. All articles were (1) manually reviewed to assess whether the use of a reporting guideline could be advisable, and (2) searched for the names and acronyms (eg, CONSORT [Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials], STROBE [Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology]) of 16 reporting guidelines. To calculate the \"advisable use rate,\" the number of articles for which a guideline was used was divided by the number of articles for which the
guideline was advised. Descriptive statistics were used.
We reviewed 895 manuscripts across the 5 journals. The use of a
guideline was deemed advisable for 693 (77%) articles. Reporting guidelines were used in 50 articles, representing 5.6% of total articles and 7.2% (95% CI 5-9) of articles for which
guidelines were advised. The advisable use rate boundaries within which a guideline was applied by the journals were 0.03 to 0.10 for any
guideline, 0 to 0.26 for CONSORT, 0.01 to 0.07 for STROBE, 0 to 0.8 for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), and 0 to 0.14 for Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). No identifiable trends in the variables studied were observed across the 5 journals.
The limited use of reporting
guidelines appears counterintuitive, considering that
guidelines are promoted by journals and are intended to help authors report relevant information. Whether this finding is attributable to issues with the diffusion, awareness, acceptance, or perceived usefulness of the guidelines remains to be clarified.