• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Reporting transparency: making the ethical mandate explicit.报告透明度:明确道德要求。
BMC Med. 2016 Mar 16;14:44. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0587-5.
2
Publication ethics.出版伦理
Paediatr Anaesth. 2009 Oct;19(10):1011-3. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.03086.x. Epub 2009 Jun 13.
3
The ethics of peer review: What to know before saying "yes".同行评审的伦理:在答应之前需要了解的内容。
Nurs Manage. 2016 Jul;47(7):44-8. doi: 10.1097/01.NUMA.0000480762.22417.43.
4
Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology.风湿病学中临床研究行为、报告、出版和出版后推广的完整性。
Clin Rheumatol. 2020 Apr;39(4):1049-1060. doi: 10.1007/s10067-020-04965-0. Epub 2020 Feb 5.
5
Ethical and methodological standards for laboratory and medical biological rhythm research.实验室及医学生物节律研究的伦理与方法标准。
Chronobiol Int. 2008 Nov;25(6):999-1016. doi: 10.1080/07420520802544530.
6
Time to finger point or fix? An invitation to join ongoing efforts to promote ethical authorship and other good publication practices.是指责的时候了,还是解决问题的时候了?邀请您加入正在进行的努力,以促进道德的作者身份和其他良好的出版实践。
Ann Pharmacother. 2013 Jul-Aug;47(7-8):1084-7. doi: 10.1345/aph.1S178. Epub 2013 Jun 25.
7
Meeting our ethical obligations in medical publishing: responsibilities of editors, authors, and readers of peer-reviewed journals.履行医学出版中的道德义务:同行评审期刊编辑、作者及读者的责任
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005 May;123(5):684-6. doi: 10.1001/archopht.123.5.684.
8
Responsible research publication: international standards for editors.负责任的研究发表:编辑的国际标准
Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki). 2014;35(3):35-41. doi: 10.1515/prilozi-2015-0006.
9
Reporting guidelines for health research: protocol for a cross-sectional analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library.健康研究报告规范:EQUATOR 网络文库的横断面分析方案。
BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 4;9(3):e022769. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022769.
10
Maintaining Research and Publication Integrity.维护研究与出版的诚信。
Clin Chem. 2019 Feb;65(2):230-235. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2018.298901. Epub 2018 Dec 17.

引用本文的文献

1
Prognostic models for predicting patient arrivals in emergency departments: an updated systematic review and research agenda.预测急诊科患者就诊情况的预后模型:最新系统评价与研究议程
BMC Emerg Med. 2025 Jul 1;25(1):106. doi: 10.1186/s12873-025-01250-8.
2
Transparency in Science Reporting: A Call to Researchers and Publishers.科学报告中的透明度:呼吁研究人员和出版商
Cureus. 2025 Feb 23;17(2):e79493. doi: 10.7759/cureus.79493. eCollection 2025 Feb.
3
The Songdo consensus: Development of minimum reporting standards for studies of intervention in idiopathic anal fistula using a modified nominal group technique.松岛共识:采用改良的名义小组技术制定特发性肛瘘干预研究的最低报告标准。
Colorectal Dis. 2025 Jan;27(1):e17300. doi: 10.1111/codi.17300.
4
Dissemination and outcome reporting bias in clinical malaria intervention trials: a cross-sectional analysis.临床疟疾干预试验中的传播和结果报告偏倚:一项横断面分析。
Malar J. 2024 Sep 30;23(1):293. doi: 10.1186/s12936-024-05115-6.
5
Navigating the Landscape of Digital Twins in Medicine: A Relational Bioethical Inquiry.探索医学数字孪生的全景:一项关系生物伦理探究。
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2024 Apr 23;16(3):471-481. doi: 10.1007/s41649-024-00280-x. eCollection 2024 Jul.
6
The Reporting of a Disproportionality Analysis for Drug Safety Signal Detection Using Individual Case Safety Reports in PharmacoVigilance (READUS-PV): Development and Statement.使用个体病例安全报告在药物警戒中进行药物安全性信号检测的不均衡分析报告:方法学开发与声明。
Drug Saf. 2024 Jun;47(6):575-584. doi: 10.1007/s40264-024-01421-9. Epub 2024 May 7.
7
Developing public health competency statements and frameworks: a scoping review and thematic analysis of approaches.制定公共卫生能力陈述和框架:方法的范围审查和主题分析。
BMC Public Health. 2023 Nov 13;23(1):2240. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-17182-6.
8
Paper 4: a review of reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews in health policy and systems research.论文 4:快速审查在卫生政策和体系研究中的报告和传播方法综述。
Syst Rev. 2022 Jul 30;11(1):152. doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-01897-5.
9
Reporting Guidelines for Whole-Body Vibration Studies in Humans, Animals and Cell Cultures: A Consensus Statement from an International Group of Experts.人类、动物和细胞培养物全身振动研究报告指南:国际专家小组的共识声明
Biology (Basel). 2021 Sep 27;10(10):965. doi: 10.3390/biology10100965.
10
Is there an agreement between self-reported medical diagnosis in the CARTaGENE cohort and the Québec administrative health databases?CARTaGENE队列中自我报告的医学诊断与魁北克行政卫生数据库之间是否存在一致性?
Int J Popul Data Sci. 2020 Mar 26;5(1):1155. doi: 10.23889/ijpds.v5i1.1155. eCollection 2020.

本文引用的文献

1
Implementing PRISMA-P: recommendations for prospective authors.实施PRISMA-P:给前瞻性研究作者的建议
Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 28;5:15. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0191-y.
2
PSYCHOLOGY. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.心理学. 心理科学可重复性的评估.
Science. 2015 Aug 28;349(6251):aac4716. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716.
3
Ethical challenges of big data in public health.公共卫生领域大数据的伦理挑战。
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 Feb 9;11(2):e1003904. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003904. eCollection 2015 Feb.
4
The social licence for research: why care.data ran into trouble.研究的社会许可:为何care.data陷入困境。
J Med Ethics. 2015 May;41(5):404-9. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102374. Epub 2015 Jan 23.
5
Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research.减少生物医学研究中不完整或无法使用的报告所造成的浪费。
Lancet. 2014 Jan 18;383(9913):267-76. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. Epub 2014 Jan 8.
6
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.《世界医学协会赫尔辛基宣言:涉及人类受试者的医学研究伦理原则》
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
7
On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature.论科学的可重复性:生物医学文献中研究资源的独特识别。
PeerJ. 2013 Sep 5;1:e148. doi: 10.7717/peerj.148. eCollection 2013.
8
Declaration of transparency for each research article.每篇研究文章的透明度声明。
BMJ. 2013 Aug 7;347:f4796. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f4796.
9
Using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement to assess reporting of observational trials in hand surgery.使用流行病学观察性研究报告强化(STROBE)声明来评估手外科观察性试验的报告情况。
J Hand Surg Am. 2013 Aug;38(8):1584-9.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.05.008. Epub 2013 Jul 8.
10
Ethical aspects and dilemmas of preparing, writing and publishing of the scientific papers in the biomedical journals.生物医学期刊中科学论文的撰写、发表所涉及的伦理问题与困境。
Acta Inform Med. 2012 Sep;20(3):141-8. doi: 10.5455/aim.2012.20.141-148.

报告透明度:明确道德要求。

Reporting transparency: making the ethical mandate explicit.

作者信息

Nicholls Stuart G, Langan Sinéad M, Benchimol Eric I, Moher David

机构信息

Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute, c/o RI Administration Offices, Research Building 1, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L1, Canada.

School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

出版信息

BMC Med. 2016 Mar 16;14:44. doi: 10.1186/s12916-016-0587-5.

DOI:10.1186/s12916-016-0587-5
PMID:26979591
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4793699/
Abstract

Improving the transparency and quality of reporting in biomedical research is considered ethically important; yet, this is often based on practical reasons such as the facilitation of peer review. Surprisingly, there has been little explicit discussion regarding the ethical obligations that underpin reporting guidelines. In this commentary, we suggest a number of ethical drivers for the improved reporting of research. These ethical drivers relate to researcher integrity as well as to the benefits derived from improved reporting such as the fair use of resources, minimizing risk of harms, and maximizing benefits. Despite their undoubted benefit to reporting completeness, questions remain regarding the extent to which reporting guidelines can influence processes beyond publication, including researcher integrity or the uptake of scientific research findings into policy or practice. Thus, we consider investigation on the effects of reporting guidelines an important step in providing evidence of their benefits.

摘要

提高生物医学研究报告的透明度和质量在伦理上被认为是重要的;然而,这往往基于诸如便于同行评审等实际原因。令人惊讶的是,对于支撑报告指南的伦理义务,几乎没有明确的讨论。在这篇评论中,我们提出了一些促进改进研究报告的伦理驱动因素。这些伦理驱动因素涉及研究人员的诚信,以及改进报告所带来的益处,如资源的合理使用、将危害风险降至最低和利益最大化。尽管报告指南对报告完整性有无疑的益处,但对于报告指南能够在多大程度上影响出版之外的过程,包括研究人员的诚信或科研成果在政策或实践中的应用,仍存在疑问。因此,我们认为对报告指南的效果进行调查是提供其益处证据的重要一步。