Altman Douglas G, Bossuyt Patrick Mm
Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Wolfson College, Oxford, Reino Unido.
Med Clin (Barc). 2005 Dec 1;125 Suppl 1:49-55. doi: 10.1016/s0025-7753(05)72210-7.
Deficiencies in how research studies are reported are both well-documented and widespread across all medical specialties and study designs. Although randomised trials have received the most attention in this regard, similar concerns have been expressed about reporting of other types of research including diagnostic and epidemiological studies. If a journal article describes in enough detail what was done at each stage of a study, readers will have enough information to allow them to decide on the merits of the results for themselves. From this simple idea comes the scientific rationale of developing guidelines on how to report research. Recommended processes to produce reporting guidelines have evolved over several years during the preparation of a sequence of reporting guidelines starting with CONSORT and QUOROM in the 1990s. We describe initiatives to develop reporting guidelines for diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) and tumour marker prognostic studies (REMARK).
研究报告中存在的缺陷有充分的文献记载，并且在所有医学专业和研究设计中都广泛存在。尽管随机试验在这方面受到了最多关注，但对于其他类型研究的报告也表达了类似的担忧，包括诊断性研究和流行病学研究。如果一篇期刊文章足够详细地描述了研究每个阶段所做的事情，读者将有足够的信息来自行判断结果的价值。基于这个简单的想法，就产生了制定研究报告指南的科学依据。在从20世纪90年代的CONSORT和QUOROM开始的一系列报告指南的制定过程中，生成报告指南的推荐流程已经发展了数年。我们描述了为诊断准确性研究（STARD）和肿瘤标志物预后研究（REMARK）制定报告指南的倡议。
