文献检索文档翻译深度研究
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
邀请有礼套餐&价格历史记录

新学期,新优惠

限时优惠:9月1日-9月22日

30天高级会员仅需29元

1天体验卡首发特惠仅需5.99元

了解详情
不再提醒
插件&应用
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
高级版
套餐订阅购买积分包
AI 工具
文献检索文档翻译深度研究
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 @ 2025

A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials.

作者信息

Chauvin Anthony, Moher David, Altman Doug, Schriger David L, Alam Sabina, Hopewell Sally, Shanahan Daniel R, Recchioni Alessandro, Ravaud Philippe, Boutron Isabelle

机构信息

METHODS team, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), Paris, France.

Paris Descartes University, Paris, France.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 15;7(9):e017462. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017462.


DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017462
PMID:28918414
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5640136/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review for biomedical publications highlighted that interventions were limited and have little impact. This study aims to compare the accuracy of early career peer reviewers who use an innovative online tool to the usual peer reviewer process in evaluating the completeness of reporting and switched primary outcomes in completed reports. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cross-sectional study of individual two-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the BioMed Central series medical journals, , and and indexed with the publication type 'Randomised Controlled Trial'. First, we will develop an online tool and training module based (a) on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist and the Explanation and Elaboration document that would be dedicated to junior peer reviewers for assessing the completeness of reporting of key items and (b) the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Outcome Monitoring Project process used to identify switched outcomes in completed reports of the primary results of RCTs when initially submitted. Then, we will compare the performance of early career peer reviewers who use the online tool to the usual peer review process in identifying inadequate reporting and switched outcomes in completed reports of RCTs at initial journal submission. The primary outcome will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript. The secondary outcomes will be the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript for the CONSORT items and the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio to detect the item as adequately reported and to identify a switch in outcomes. We aim to include 120 RCTs and 120 early career peer reviewers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research protocol was approved by the ethics committee of the INSERM Institutional Review Board (21 January 2016). The study is based on voluntary participation and informed written consent. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03119376.

摘要
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b700/5640136/b0933a617234/bmjopen-2017-017462f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b700/5640136/b0933a617234/bmjopen-2017-017462f01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b700/5640136/b0933a617234/bmjopen-2017-017462f01.jpg

相似文献

[1]
A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trials.

BMJ Open. 2017-9-15

[2]
Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study.

BMC Med. 2019-11-19

[3]
Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BMJ Open. 2020-3-19

[4]
Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study.

BMJ Open. 2016-2-21

[5]
Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012-11-14

[6]
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1

[7]
Quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in emergency medicine journals: a protocol for a systematic survey of the literature.

BMJ Open. 2017-4-27

[8]
Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals: a review and analysis.

BMJ Open. 2016-7-28

[9]
Reminding Peer Reviewers of Reporting Guideline Items to Improve Completeness in Published Articles: Primary Results of 2 Randomized Trials.

JAMA Netw Open. 2023-6-1

[10]
Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-11-28

引用本文的文献

[1]
Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-11-28

[2]
Development of a checklist to detect errors in meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: study protocol.

F1000Res. 2021

[3]
Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials: a randomised controlled trial.

BMJ Open. 2020-5-18

[4]
Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study.

BMC Med. 2019-11-19

[5]
Trial registration as a safeguard against outcome reporting bias and spin? A case study of randomized controlled trials of acupuncture.

PLoS One. 2019-10-3

本文引用的文献

[1]
Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BMC Med. 2016-6-10

[2]
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study.

PLoS Med. 2016-5-24

[3]
Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2016-9

[4]
Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial.

BMC Med. 2015-9-15

[5]
The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.

BMC Med. 2015-7-3

[6]
Avoidable waste of research related to inadequate methods in clinical trials.

BMJ. 2015-3-24

[7]
A systematic review highlights a knowledge gap regarding the effectiveness of health-related training programs in journalology.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2014-11-7

[8]
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system.

BMC Med. 2014-9-26

[9]
Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study.

BMJ. 2014-7-1

[10]
Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials.

PLoS Med. 2014-6-24

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

推荐工具

医学文档翻译智能文献检索