reporting checklist

报告清单
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:最近的一项适用性研究强调,使用模拟患者方法学(CRiSP)报告研究的现有清单需要更清晰和用户友好。这项研究的目的是更新清单以解决这些问题。
    方法:第四轮德尔菲共识研究,在原始检查表开发工作中使用,进行了。以前的参与者,他们在SP方法论方面有专业知识,被邀请填写一份问卷,其中包括在先前研究中开发并在适用性测试后修订的13个清单项目。对封闭的问题进行了频率分析。共识被预先定义为>80%的协议。所有项目都在圆桌会议上进行了讨论,并视需要进一步修改。对开放性问题的回答进行了内容分析。
    结果:21位作者参与。在13个修改的核对表项目中,有12个在统计上达成共识。
    结论:已使用共识方法为使用SP方法的健康研究中的研究制定了最终报告清单。可能需要进一步改进以增加清单在不同上下文中的可泛化性。
    OBJECTIVE: A recent applicability study highlighted the need for the existing checklist for reporting research using a simulated patient methodology (CRiSP) to be clearer and user-friendly. The aim of this study was to update the checklist to address these concerns.
    METHODS: A fourth round of the Delphi consensus study, used in the original checklist development work, was conducted. Previous participants, who had expertise in SP methodology, were invited to complete a questionnaire including a list of 13 checklist items developed in the previous study and revised following applicability testing. Closed questions were analysed for frequency. Consensus was predefined as >80% agreement. All items were discussed in a roundtable meeting and further modified as necessary. Responses to open questions were content analysed.
    RESULTS: Twenty-one authors participated. There was a statistical consensus in 12 out of 13 modified checklist items.
    CONCLUSIONS: A final reporting checklist for studies in health research using SP methodology has been developed using a consensus approach. Further refinements may be needed to increase the generalizability of the checklist in different contexts.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Review
    营养研究的透明报告促进了严谨,再现性,以及与人类营养的相关性。我们对最近报道小鼠饮食叶酸干预的文章进行了范围审查,作为案例研究,以确定通用研究设计项目的报告频率(即,性别,应变,和年龄)和营养特定项目(即,基本饮食组成,干预剂量,持续时间,和暴露验证)在基础营养研究中。我们在EMBASE中确定了798篇原始研究文章,Medline,食品科学与技术文摘(FSTA)全球卫生,以及2009年1月至2021年7月之间发布的国际药物文摘(IPA)数据库,其中在小鼠中使用了饮食叶酸(FA)干预措施。我们确定了312篇原始同行评审的文章,包括191篇非妊娠小鼠研究和126篇妊娠小鼠研究。大多数研究报告性别(99%),菌株(99%),年龄(83%)。大多数研究使用3-9周的C57BL/6(53%)或BALB/c(11%)小鼠。非妊娠研究更可能仅使用雄性小鼠(57%)。膳食FA干预措施变化很大且重叠:缺乏(0-3mg/kg),对照(0-16mg/kg),并补充(0-50mg/kg)。只有63%的研究使用具有声明的FA含量的开放式配方基础饮食,60%的研究使用叶酸状态生物标志物验证了FA暴露。非妊娠研究的干预持续时间为1至104周。妊娠研究的干预持续时间为1-19周,发生在怀孕前和/或怀孕和/或哺乳期间。总的来说,17%的研究未报告≥1个通用研究设计项目,40%的研究未报告≥1个营养特异性研究设计项目。营养研究中重要的通用和营养特定研究设计细节的可变性和频繁缺乏报告限制了它们的普遍性。再现性,和解释。在动物研究中使用报告清单将提高关键研究设计的报告质量,并在基于动物的营养研究中实施因素。
    Transparent reporting of nutrition research promotes rigor, reproducibility, and relevance to human nutrition. We performed a scoping review of recent articles reporting dietary folate interventions in mice as a case study to determine the reporting frequency of generic study design items (i.e., sex, strain, and age) and nutrition-specific items (i.e., base diet composition, intervention doses, duration, and exposure verification) in basic nutrition research. We identified 798 original research articles in the EMBASE, Medline, Food Science and Technology Abstracts (FSTA), Global Health, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) databases published between January 2009 and July 2021 in which a dietary folic acid (FA) intervention was used in mice. We identified 312 original peer-reviewed articles including 191 studies in nonpregnant and 126 in pregnant mice. Most studies reported sex (99%), strain (99%), and age (83%). The majority of studies used C57BL/6 (53%) or BALB/c (11%) mice aged 3-9 wk. Nonpregnancy studies were more likely to use only male mice (57%). Dietary FA interventions varied considerably and overlapped: deficiency (0-3 mg/kg), control (0-16 mg/kg), and supplemented (0-50 mg/kg). Only 63% of studies used an open-formula base diet with a declared FA content and 60% of studies verified FA exposure using folate status biomarkers. The duration of intervention ranged from 1 to 104 wk for nonpregnancy studies. The duration of intervention for pregnancy studies was 1-19 wk, occurring variably before pregnancy and/or during pregnancy and/or lactation. Overall, 17% of studies did not report ≥1 generic study design item(s) and 40% did not report ≥1 nutrition-specific study design item(s). The variability and frequent lack of reporting of important generic and nutrition-specific study design details in nutrition studies limit their generalizability, reproducibility, and interpretation. The use of reporting checklists for animal research would enhance reporting quality of key study design and conduct factors in animal-based nutrition research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Review
    营养研究的透明报告促进了严谨,再现性,以及与人类营养的相关性。我们对最近报道小鼠饮食叶酸干预的文章进行了范围审查,作为案例研究,以确定通用研究设计项目的报告频率(即,性别,应变,和年龄)和营养特定项目(即,基本饮食组成,干预剂量,持续时间,和暴露验证)在基础营养研究中。我们在EMBASE中确定了798篇原始研究文章,Medline,食品科学与技术文摘(FSTA)全球卫生,以及2009年1月至2021年7月之间发布的国际药物文摘(IPA)数据库,其中在小鼠中使用了饮食叶酸(FA)干预措施。我们确定了312篇原始同行评审的文章,包括191篇非妊娠小鼠研究和126篇妊娠小鼠研究。大多数研究报告性别(99%),菌株(99%),年龄(83%)。大多数研究使用3-9周的C57BL/6(53%)或BALB/c(11%)小鼠。非妊娠研究更可能仅使用雄性小鼠(57%)。膳食FA干预措施变化很大且重叠:缺乏(0-3mg/kg),对照(0-16mg/kg),并补充(0-50mg/kg)。只有63%的研究使用具有声明的FA含量的开放式配方基础饮食,60%的研究使用叶酸状态生物标志物验证了FA暴露。非妊娠研究的干预持续时间为1至104周。妊娠研究的干预持续时间为1-19周,发生在怀孕前和/或怀孕和/或哺乳期间。总的来说,17%的研究未报告≥1个通用研究设计项目,40%的研究未报告≥1个营养特异性研究设计项目。营养研究中重要的通用和营养特定研究设计细节的可变性和频繁缺乏报告限制了它们的普遍性。再现性,和解释。在动物研究中使用报告清单将提高关键研究设计的报告质量,并在基于动物的营养研究中实施因素。
    Transparent reporting of nutrition research promotes rigor, reproducibility, and relevance to human nutrition. We performed a scoping review of recent articles reporting dietary folate interventions in mice as a case study to determine the reporting frequency of generic study design items (i.e., sex, strain, and age) and nutrition-specific items (i.e., base diet composition, intervention doses, duration, and exposure verification) in basic nutrition research. We identified 798 original research articles in the EMBASE, Medline, Food Science and Technology Abstracts (FSTA), Global Health, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) databases published between January 2009 and July 2021 in which a dietary folic acid (FA) intervention was used in mice. We identified 312 original peer-reviewed articles including 191 studies in nonpregnant and 126 in pregnant mice. Most studies reported sex (99%), strain (99%), and age (83%). The majority of studies used C57BL/6 (53%) or BALB/c (11%) mice aged 3-9 wk. Nonpregnancy studies were more likely to use only male mice (57%). Dietary FA interventions varied considerably and overlapped: deficiency (0-3 mg/kg), control (0-16 mg/kg), and supplemented (0-50 mg/kg). Only 63% of studies used an open-formula base diet with a declared FA content and 60% of studies verified FA exposure using folate status biomarkers. The duration of intervention ranged from 1 to 104 wk for nonpregnancy studies. The duration of intervention for pregnancy studies was 1-19 wk, occurring variably before pregnancy and/or during pregnancy and/or lactation. Overall, 17% of studies did not report ≥1 generic study design item(s) and 40% did not report ≥1 nutrition-specific study design item(s). The variability and frequent lack of reporting of important generic and nutrition-specific study design details in nutrition studies limit their generalizability, reproducibility, and interpretation. The use of reporting checklists for animal research would enhance reporting quality of key study design and conduct factors in animal-based nutrition research.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    UNASSIGNED: Standardized and transparent reporting of surgical technique is the cornerstone of effective dissemination, implementation and improvement. However, current reporting of surgical techniques is inadequate. The existing guidelines potentially applied to guide surgical technique reporting are with a minimal highlight of the surgical technique, lack requirements explaining what extent and dimensions need to be described in detail, or are unlikely to extrapolate to a wide range of surgical techniques. This study aims to formulate a rigorous protocol to develop a surgical technique reporting checklist and standards (SUPER) that defines what a clear, comprehensive and detailed surgical technique report should be contained.
    UNASSIGNED: This protocol is designed following the classic guidance for developing reporting guidelines recommended by the EQUATOR network.
    UNASSIGNED: The development team will consist of surgeons (~80%), methodologists, and journal editors. The draft checklist sources will include a scoping review of existing reporting guidelines related to surgical technique, surgical technique articles from 15 top journals published in the last year, and brainstorming by the multidisciplinary development team. The final SUPER checklist will be formed after three rounds of Delphi surveys, one round of face-to-face meeting, and a month-long pilot test. The SUPER checklist will be published as open-access and be used in combination with existing reporting guidelines related to surgical techniques (e.g., IDEAL). This protocol will steer the SUPER checklist\'s development, allowing us to further elaborate surgical technique reporting for all surgical specialties, and enabling a more favorable experience for surgeons, nurses, medical students, residents, editors, and reviewers.
    UNASSIGNED: This trial is registered at the EQUATOR network on December 18th, 2020. Available at: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-other-study-designs/.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    OBJECTIVE: Simulated patients are increasingly used to measure outcomes in health services but reporting is suboptimal. This study aims to create a checklist for the reporting of simulated patient (SP) methodology.
    METHODS: This was a Delphi study. The authors of health service research studies using SP methodology were invited to participate. Round 1 questionnaire assessed the applicability of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) reporting checklist for SP methodology and asked for rewording of/additional items. Responses were thematically analysed to generate Round 2 items in which participants rated each item for importance (seven-point Likert scale) and median, mode and IQR were calculated. In Round 3, participants were invited to rescore their Round 2 responses. Consensus was defined as an IQR ≤ 1 (Extremely important) and median ≤ 2 (Very important). All consensus items were considered for inclusion in the checklist. Similarly, worded items were rationalised and items not specific to SP methodology or other existing checklists were excluded.
    RESULTS: Twenty-nine authors participated in Round 1 and a further seven for Rounds 2 and 3. Twenty-six responses were analysed for Round 1, 30 for Round 2 and 28 for Round 3. There was consensus on 29 of 54 items in Round 2 and 45 of 63 items in Round 3. The final checklist comprised 28 items.
    CONCLUSIONS: A new reporting checklist to guide the reporting of studies, using simulated patients, complementary to CONSORT or STROBE, has been developed and will now be tested for usability.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

公众号