eSeminar: Research papers that make a difference: discussing research waste, reproducibility and impactby Iveta Simera, the EQUATOR Network
Dr Iveta Seimer, Deputy Director of the UK EQUATOR Centre, discusses research waste, reproducibility, and how to use reporting guidelines to make an impact. Poor reporting seriously affects the integrity of health research literature and critically limits the use and impact of published studies.
In celebration of Global Health Trials' fifth birthday (May 11th 2015) Professor Trudie Lang, Principal Investigator of the programme, talks to us about why Global Health Trials was started, why people should share their experience, and what the future holds.
Despite published guidance on writing the abstract in the PRISMA Statement guiding the reporting of systematic reviews in general and elsewhere, evaluations show that reporting of systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts is poor. Teh authors developed consensus-based reporting guidelines as an extension to the PRISMA Statement on good reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in abstracts.
Research reporting guidelines are standard statements that provide guidance on how to report research methodology and findings. These are in the form of checklists, flow diagrams or texts. Most of the biomedical journals require authors to comply with these guidelines. Guidelines are available for reporting various study designs:
- CONSORT Statement (reporting of randomized controlled trials)
- STARD (reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies)
- STROBE (reporting of observational studies in epidemiology)
- PRISMA (reporting of systematic reviews)
- MOOSE (reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies)