Li Guowei, Mbuagbaw Lawrence, Samaan Zainab, Jin Yanling, Nwosu Ikunna, Levine Mitchell A H, Adachi Jonathan D, Thabane Lehana
Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 29;7(3):e014749. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014749.
Incomplete or inconsistent reporting remains a major concern in the biomedical literature. Incomplete or inconsistent reporting may yield the published findings unreliable, irreproducible or sometimes misleading. In this study based on evidence from systematic reviews and surveys that have evaluated the reporting issues in primary biomedical studies, we aim to conduct a scoping review with focuses on (1) the state-of-the-art extent of adherence to the emerging reporting guidelines in primary biomedical research, (2) the inconsistency between protocols or registrations and full reports and (3) the disagreement between abstracts and full-text articles.
We will use a comprehensive search strategy to retrieve all available and eligible systematic reviews and surveys in the literature. We will search the following electronic databases: Web of Science, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). Our outcomes are levels of adherence to reporting guidelines, levels of consistency between protocols or registrations and full reports and the agreement between abstracts and full reports, all of which will be expressed as percentages, quality scores or categorised rating (such as high, medium and low). No pooled analyses will be performed quantitatively given the heterogeneity of the included systematic reviews and surveys. Likewise, factors associated with improved completeness and consistency of reporting will be summarised qualitatively. The quality of the included systematic reviews will be evaluated using AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews).
All findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and relevant conferences. These results may advance our understanding of the extent of incomplete and inconsistent reporting, factors related to improved completeness and consistency of reporting and potential recommendations for various stakeholders in the biomedical community.
在生物医学文献中，报告不完整或不一致仍是一个主要问题。报告不完整或不一致可能会使已发表的研究结果不可靠、无法重复，有时甚至会产生误导。在这项基于对评估基础生物医学研究报告问题的系统评价和调查证据的研究中，我们旨在进行一项范围综述，重点关注：（1）基础生物医学研究中对新兴报告指南的遵循程度的最新情况；（2）方案或注册信息与完整报告之间的不一致；（3）摘要与全文文章之间的差异。
我们将采用全面的检索策略，检索文献中所有可用且符合条件的系统评价和调查。我们将检索以下电子数据库：科学网、医学文摘数据库（EMBASE）、医学索引数据库（MEDLINE）和护理学与健康相关文献累积索引（CINAHL）。我们的研究结果是对报告指南的遵循水平、方案或注册信息与完整报告之间的一致水平以及摘要与完整报告之间的一致性，所有这些都将以百分比、质量得分或分类评级（如高、中、低）来表示。鉴于纳入的系统评价和调查存在异质性，将不进行定量的汇总分析。同样，将定性总结与报告完整性和一致性提高相关的因素。将使用AMSTAR（一种评估系统评价的测量工具）来评估纳入的系统评价的质量。
所有研究结果将发表在同行评审期刊和相关会议上。这些结果可能会增进我们对报告不完整和不一致程度、与报告完整性和一致性提高相关的因素以及生物医学领域各利益相关者潜在建议的理解。
