Medicina Clínica, Elsevier-Barcelona, Barcelona 08021, Spain.
BMJ. 2011 Nov 22;343:d6783. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d6783.
To investigate the effect of an additional review based on reporting guidelines such as STROBE and CONSORT on quality of manuscripts.
Masked randomised trial. Population Original research manuscripts submitted to the Medicina Clínica journal from May 2008 to April 2009 and considered suitable for publication.
conventional peer reviews alone. Intervention group: conventional review plus an additional review looking for missing items from reporting guidelines. Outcomes Manuscript quality, assessed with a 5 point Likert scale (primary: overall quality; secondary: average quality of specific items in paper). Main analysis compared groups as allocated, after adjustment for baseline factors (analysis of covariance); sensitivity analysis compared groups as reviewed. Adherence to reviewer suggestions assessed with Likert scale.
Of 126 consecutive papers receiving conventional review, 34 were not suitable for publication. The remaining 92 papers were allocated to receive conventional reviews alone (n=41) or additional reviews (n=51). Four papers assigned to the conventional review group deviated from protocol; they received an additional review based on reporting guidelines. We saw an improvement in manuscript quality in favour of the additional review group (comparison as allocated, 0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.54; as reviewed, 0.33, 0.03 to 0.63). More papers with additional reviews than with conventional reviews alone improved from baseline (22 (43%) v eight (20%), difference 23.6% (3.2% to 44.0%), number needed to treat 4.2 (from 2.3 to 31.2), relative risk 2.21 (1.10 to 4.44)). Authors in the additional review group adhered more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews (average increase 0.43 Likert points (0.19 to 0.67)).
Additional reviews based on reporting guidelines improve manuscript quality, although the observed effect was smaller than hypothesised and not definitively demonstrated. Authors adhere more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews, showing difficulties in adhering to high methodological standards at the latest research phases. To boost paper quality and impact, authors should be aware of future requirements of reporting guidelines at the very beginning of their study. Trial registration and protocol Although registries do not include trials of peer review, the protocol design was submitted to sponsored research projects (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, PI081903).
研究基于 STROBE 和 CONSORT 等报告指南的额外审查对稿件质量的影响。
双盲随机试验。
2008 年 5 月至 2009 年 4 月期间提交给《临床医学》杂志的原始研究手稿，且认为适合发表。
仅接受传统同行评审。
传统审查加额外审查，寻找报告指南中遗漏的项目。
在接受传统审查的 126 篇连续论文中，有 34 篇不适合发表。其余 92 篇论文被分配接受传统审查（n=41）或额外审查（n=51）。4 篇被分配到传统审查组的论文偏离了方案；他们根据报告指南接受了额外的审查。我们看到额外审查组的稿件质量有所提高（按分配比较，0.25，95%置信区间-0.05 至 0.54；按审查比较，0.33，0.03 至 0.63）。与仅接受传统审查相比，接受额外审查的论文中有更多的论文从基线开始有所改善（22 篇（43%）比 8 篇（20%），差异 23.6%（3.2%至 44.0%），需要治疗的人数为 4.2（从 2.3 至 31.2），相对风险为 2.21（1.10 至 4.44））。额外审查组的作者比传统审查组的作者更遵守建议（平均增加 0.43 个李克特点（0.19 至 0.67））。
基于报告指南的额外审查可提高稿件质量，尽管观察到的效果小于假设值，且未得到明确证实。作者更遵守传统审查的建议，而不遵守额外审查的建议，这表明在最新的研究阶段很难遵守高方法学标准。为了提高论文质量和影响力，作者应在研究开始时就意识到报告指南的未来要求。
虽然注册处不包括同行评审试验，但方案设计已提交给赞助研究项目（西班牙卡洛斯三世健康研究所，PI081903）。
