Journal of clinical epidemiology
-
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. ⋯ In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
-
To compare the reporting on blinding in protocols and articles describing randomized controlled trials. ⋯ The reporting on blinding in both trial protocols and publications is often inadequate. We suggest developing international guidelines for the reporting of trial protocols and public access to protocols.
-
Changing author counts in five major general medicine journals: effect of author contribution forms.
Objective and indirect evidence was used to determine whether required author contribution forms were associated with a decrease in author counts in four major general medicine journals (British Medical Journal [BMJ], Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], Canadian Medical Association Journal [CMAJ], and the Lancet). The number of authors listed per article before and after the introduction of explicit author contribution requirements were counted and compared with that found for the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that did not require such disclosure. The primary hypothesis was that author counts decreased more in the BMJ, CMAJ, JAMA, and the Lancet after introduction of the rules than they did in the NEJM. ⋯ Based on the presented objective and indirect evidence, required author contribution forms were not associated with a decrease in author counts.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Systematic reviews of low back pain prognosis had variable methods and results: guidance for future prognosis reviews.
Systematic reviews of prognostic factors for low back pain vary substantially in design and conduct. The objective of this study was to identify, describe, and synthesize systematic reviews of low back pain prognosis, and explore the potential impact of review methods on the conclusions. ⋯ There is an immediate need for methodological work in the area of prognosis systematic reviews. Because of methodological shortcomings in the primary and review literature, there remains uncertainty about reliability of conclusions regarding prognostic factors for low back pain.
-
To study variations in the number of times trials of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) were cited, and which characteristics of trials predicted the number of citations and the impact factors of journals in which articles were published. ⋯ Citations were biased toward trials with positive results and toward trials published in high-impact-factor journals.