JoVE Visualize What is visualize?
Stop Reading. Start Watching.
Advanced Search
Stop Reading. Start Watching.
Regular Search
Find video protocols related to scientific articles indexed in Pubmed.
Along with the privilege of authorship come important responsibilities.
BMC Med
PUBLISHED: 10-15-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Transparently documenting who and why a person is an author of a clinical trial report, as with any other article, is important since it allows research team members appropriate recognition and also likely helps reduce or avoid problems such as ghost authorship. Maru¿i¿ and colleagues have previously proposed a five-step framework for attributing authorship of pharmaceutical company-sponsored clinical trials. The process is short, easily implemented, and can be used in addition to the authorship guidance provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. For the framework to gain optimal traction it is important that a strong implementation plan is developed and carried out across a broad spectrum of stakeholders. Authorship brings with it important responsibilities; authors must ensure that articles baring their names must be fit for purpose. This will help guarantee an increased value for published reports of clinical trials.
Related JoVE Video
Do sugar-sweetened beverages cause adverse health outcomes in children? A systematic review protocol.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 09-04-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes are examples of chronic diseases that impose significant morbidity and mortality in the general population worldwide. Most chronic diseases are associated with underlying preventable risk factors, such as elevated blood pressure, high blood glucose or glucose intolerance, high lipid levels, physical inactivity, excessive sedentary behaviours, and overweight/obesity. The occurrence of intermediate outcomes during childhood increases the risk of disease in adulthood. Sugar-sweetened beverages are known to be significant sources of additional caloric intake, and given recent attention to their contribution in the development of chronic diseases, a systematic review is warranted. We will assess whether the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in children is associated with adverse health outcomes and what the potential moderating factors are.
Related JoVE Video
CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
Epidemiol Health
PUBLISHED: 08-23-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomized, controlled trials. Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. Randomized, controlled trials, when appropriately designed, conducted, and reported, represent the gold standard in evaluating health care interventions. However, randomized trials can yield biased results if they lack methodological rigor. To assess a trial accurately, readers of a published report need complete, clear, and transparent information on its methodology and findings. Unfortunately, attempted assessments frequently fail because authors of many trial reports neglect to provide lucid and complete descriptions of that critical information. That lack of adequate reporting fueled the development of the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement in 1996 and its revision 5 years later. While those statements improved the reporting quality for some randomized, controlled trials, many trial reports still remain inadequate. Furthermore, new methodological evidence and additional experience has accumulated since the last revision in 2001. Consequently, we organized a CONSORT Group meeting to update the 2001 statement. We introduce here the result of that process, CONSORT 2010.
Related JoVE Video
Seeing the forests and the trees--innovative approaches to exploring heterogeneity in systematic reviews of complex interventions to enhance health system decision-making: a protocol.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 08-12-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
To improve quality of care and patient outcomes, health system decision-makers need to identify and implement effective interventions. An increasing number of systematic reviews document the effects of quality improvement programs to assist decision-makers in developing new initiatives. However, limitations in the reporting of primary studies and current meta-analysis methods (including approaches for exploring heterogeneity) reduce the utility of existing syntheses for health system decision-makers. This study will explore the role of innovative meta-analysis approaches and the added value of enriched and updated data for increasing the utility of systematic reviews of complex interventions.
Related JoVE Video
Side effects are incompletely reported among systematic reviews in gastroenterology.
J Clin Epidemiol
PUBLISHED: 08-11-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Systematic reviews are an integral component of evidence-based health care. However, little is known on how well they report the potential harms of interventions. We assessed the reporting of harms in recently published systematic reviews of interventions relevant to clinical gastroenterology.
Related JoVE Video
A systematic review of how studies describe educational interventions for evidence-based practice: stage 1 of the development of a reporting guideline.
BMC Med Educ
PUBLISHED: 07-17-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to identify which information is included when reporting educational interventions used to facilitate foundational skills and knowledge of evidence-based practice (EBP) training for health professionals. This systematic review comprised the first stage in the three stage development process for a reporting guideline for educational interventions for EBP.
Related JoVE Video
Do sugar-sweetened beverages cause adverse health outcomes in adults? A systematic review protocol.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 07-15-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes, impose significant burden to public health. Most chronic diseases are associated with underlying preventable risk factors, such as elevated blood pressure, blood glucose, and lipids, physical inactivity, excessive sedentary behaviours, overweight and obesity, and tobacco usage. Sugar-sweetened beverages are known to be significant sources of additional caloric intake, and given recent attention to their contribution in the development of chronic diseases, a systematic review is warranted. We will assess whether the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in adults is associated with adverse health outcomes and what the potential moderating factors are.
Related JoVE Video
Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review.
BMJ
PUBLISHED: 06-27-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines.
Related JoVE Video
Effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances: a systematic review.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 04-23-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions (BIs) as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances.
Related JoVE Video
Safety and effectiveness of antiretroviral therapies for HIV-infected women and their infants and children: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 04-17-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Antiretroviral therapy reduces mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding. However, these agents have been associated with preterm birth, anemia and low birth weight. We aim to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of the use of antiretroviral drugs among HIV-infected women and the effects on their infants and children through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Related JoVE Video
Comparative safety of anti-epileptic drugs among infants and children exposed in utero or during breastfeeding: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 04-09-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Epilepsy affects about 1% of the general population. Anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) prevent or terminate seizures in individuals with epilepsy. Pregnant women with epilepsy may continue taking AEDs. Many of these agents cross the placenta and increase the risk of major congenital malformations, early cognitive and developmental delays, and infant mortality. We aim to evaluate the comparative safety of AEDs approved for chronic use in Canada when administered to pregnant and breastfeeding women and the effects on their infants and children through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Related JoVE Video
Efficacy and safety of mesenchymal stromal cells in preclinical models of acute lung injury: a systematic review protocol.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 04-04-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in humans is caused by an unchecked proinflammatory response that results in diffuse and severe lung injury, and it is associated with a mortality rate of 35 to 45%. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs; 'adult stem cells') could represent a promising new therapy for this syndrome, since preclinical evidence suggests that MSCs may ameliorate lung injury. Prior to a human clinical trial, our aim is to conduct a systematic review to compare the efficacy and safety of MSC therapy versus controls in preclinical models of acute lung injury that mimic some aspects of the human ARDS.
Related JoVE Video
Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide.
BMJ
PUBLISHED: 03-11-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
Related JoVE Video
Network meta-analyses could be improved by searching more sources and by involving a librarian.
J Clin Epidemiol
PUBLISHED: 03-10-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Network meta-analyses (NMAs) aim to rank the benefits (or harms) of interventions, based on all available randomized controlled trials. Thus, the identification of relevant data is critical. We assessed the conduct of the literature searches in NMAs.
Related JoVE Video
Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 03-10-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
In 2008, the Cochrane Collaboration introduced a tool for assessing the risk of bias in clinical trials included in Cochrane reviews. The risk of bias (RoB) tool is based on narrative descriptions of evidence-based methodological features known to increase the risk of bias in trials.
Related JoVE Video
A Delphi survey to determine how educational interventions for evidence-based practice should be reported: stage 2 of the development of a reporting guideline.
BMC Med Educ
PUBLISHED: 02-13-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Undertaking a Delphi exercise is recommended during the second stage in the development process for a reporting guideline. To continue the development for the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-based practice Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) a Delphi survey was undertaken to determine the consensus opinion of researchers, journal editors and educators in evidence-based practice (EBP) regarding the information items that should be reported when describing an educational intervention for EBP.
Related JoVE Video
Checking whether there is an increased risk of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder and other cancers with specific modern immunosuppression regimens in renal transplantation: protocol for a network meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 02-12-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Patients undergoing renal transplant procedures require multi-agent immunosuppressive regimens both short term (induction phase) and long term (maintenance phase) to minimize the risk of organ rejection. There are several drug classes and agents for immunosuppression. Use of these agents may increase the risk of different harms including not only infections, but also malignancies including post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder. There is a need to identify which regimens minimize the risk of such outcomes. The objective of this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies is to explore whether certain modern regimens of immunosuppression used to prevent organ rejection in renal transplant patients are associated with an increased risk of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder and other malignancies.
Related JoVE Video
Active implementation strategy of CONSORT adherence by a dental specialty journal improved randomized clinical trial reporting.
J Clin Epidemiol
PUBLISHED: 01-28-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
To describe a novel CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) adherence strategy implemented by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJO-DO) and to report its impact on the completeness of reporting of published trials.
Related JoVE Video
Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction.
Rheumatol. Int.
PUBLISHED: 01-25-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials have long been important synthesis tools for guiding evidence-based medicine. More recently, network meta-analyses, an extension of traditional meta-analyses enabling the comparison of multiple interventions, use new statistical methods to incorporate clinical evidence from both direct and indirect treatment comparisons in a network of treatments and associated trials. There is a need to provide education to ensure that core methodological considerations underlying network meta-analyses are well understood by readers and researchers to maximize their ability to appropriately interpret findings and appraise validity. Network meta-analyses are highly informative for assessing the comparative effects of multiple competing interventions in clinical practice and are a valuable tool for health technology assessment and comparative effectiveness research.
Related JoVE Video
Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting.
J Clin Epidemiol
PUBLISHED: 01-13-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
The scoping review has become increasingly popular as a form of knowledge synthesis. However, a lack of consensus on scoping review terminology, definition, methodology, and reporting limits the potential of this form of synthesis. In this article, we propose recommendations to further advance the field of scoping review methodology.
Related JoVE Video
Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research.
Lancet
PUBLISHED: 01-08-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Research publication can both communicate and miscommunicate. Unless research is adequately reported, the time and resources invested in the conduct of research is wasted. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STARD, PRISMA, and ARRIVE aim to improve the quality of research reports, but all are much less adopted and adhered to than they should be. Adequate reports of research should clearly describe which questions were addressed and why, what was done, what was shown, and what the findings mean. However, substantial failures occur in each of these elements. For example, studies of published trial reports showed that the poor description of interventions meant that 40-89% were non-replicable; comparisons of protocols with publications showed that most studies had at least one primary outcome changed, introduced, or omitted; and investigators of new trials rarely set their findings in the context of a systematic review, and cited a very small and biased selection of previous relevant trials. Although best documented in reports of controlled trials, inadequate reporting occurs in all types of studies-animal and other preclinical studies, diagnostic studies, epidemiological studies, clinical prediction research, surveys, and qualitative studies. In this report, and in the Series more generally, we point to a waste at all stages in medical research. Although a more nuanced understanding of the complex systems involved in the conduct, writing, and publication of research is desirable, some immediate action can be taken to improve the reporting of research. Evidence for some recommendations is clear: change the current system of research rewards and regulations to encourage better and more complete reporting, and fund the development and maintenance of infrastructure to support better reporting, linkage, and archiving of all elements of research. However, the high amount of waste also warrants future investment in the monitoring of and research into reporting of research, and active implementation of the findings to ensure that research reports better address the needs of the range of research users.
Related JoVE Video
Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis.
Lancet
PUBLISHED: 01-08-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Correctable weaknesses in the design, conduct, and analysis of biomedical and public health research studies can produce misleading results and waste valuable resources. Small effects can be difficult to distinguish from bias introduced by study design and analyses. An absence of detailed written protocols and poor documentation of research is common. Information obtained might not be useful or important, and statistical precision or power is often too low or used in a misleading way. Insufficient consideration might be given to both previous and continuing studies. Arbitrary choice of analyses and an overemphasis on random extremes might affect the reported findings. Several problems relate to the research workforce, including failure to involve experienced statisticians and methodologists, failure to train clinical researchers and laboratory scientists in research methods and design, and the involvement of stakeholders with conflicts of interest. Inadequate emphasis is placed on recording of research decisions and on reproducibility of research. Finally, reward systems incentivise quantity more than quality, and novelty more than reliability. We propose potential solutions for these problems, including improvements in protocols and documentation, consideration of evidence from studies in progress, standardisation of research efforts, optimisation and training of an experienced and non-conflicted scientific workforce, and reconsideration of scientific reward systems.
Related JoVE Video
Global collaborative networks on meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals: a social network analysis.
BMC Med
PUBLISHED: 01-02-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Research collaboration contributes to the advancement of knowledge by exploiting the results of scientific efforts more efficiently, but the global patterns of collaboration on meta-analysis are unknown. The purpose of this research was to describe and characterize the global collaborative patterns in meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals over the past three decades.
Related JoVE Video
The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement.
PLoS ONE
PUBLISHED: 01-01-2014
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Some have suggested the quality of reporting of network meta-analyses (a technique used to synthesize information to compare multiple interventions) is sub-optimal. We sought to review information addressing this claim.
Related JoVE Video
The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case report guideline development.
J Diet Suppl
PUBLISHED: 11-19-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. Primary Objective: Develop, disseminate, and implement systematic reporting guidelines for case reports.
Related JoVE Video
The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development.
BMJ Case Rep
PUBLISHED: 10-25-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. Develop, disseminate and implement systematic reporting guidelines for case reports. We used a three-phase consensus process consisting of (1) premeeting literature review and interviews to generate items for the reporting guidelines, (2) a face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the reporting guidelines and (3) postmeeting feedback, review and pilot testing, followed by finalisation of the case report guidelines. This consensus process involved 27 participants and resulted in a 13-item checklist-a reporting guideline for case reports. The primary items of the checklist are title, key words, abstract, introduction, patient information, clinical findings, timeline, diagnostic assessment, therapeutic interventions, follow-up and outcomes, discussion, patient perspective and informed consent. We believe the implementation of the CARE (CAse REport) guidelines by medical journals will improve the completeness and transparency of published case reports and that the systematic aggregation of information from case reports will inform clinical study design, provide early signals of effectiveness and harms, and improve healthcare delivery.
Related JoVE Video
The effects of sign language on spoken language acquisition in children with hearing loss: a systematic review protocol.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 09-17-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Permanent childhood hearing loss affects 1 to 3 per 1000 children and frequently disrupts typical spoken language acquisition. Early identification of hearing loss through universal newborn hearing screening and the use of new hearing technologies including cochlear implants make spoken language an option for most children. However, there is no consensus on what constitutes optimal interventions for children when spoken language is the desired outcome. Intervention and educational approaches ranging from oral language only to oral language combined with various forms of sign language have evolved. Parents are therefore faced with important decisions in the first months of their childs life.
Related JoVE Video
The CARE Guidelines: Consensus-Based Clinical Case Reporting Guideline Development.
Headache
PUBLISHED: 09-16-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design.
Related JoVE Video
Developing a reporting guideline for social and psychological intervention trials.
Br J Psychiatry
PUBLISHED: 09-12-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Social and psychological interventions are often complex. Understanding randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of these complex interventions requires a detailed description of the interventions tested and the methods used to evaluate them. However, RCT reports often omit, or inadequately report, this information. Incomplete and inaccurate reporting hinders the optimal use of research, wastes resources and fails to meet ethical obligations to research participants and consumers. In this paper, we explain how reporting guidelines have improved the quality of reports in medicine, and describe the ongoing development of a new reporting guideline for RCTs: CONSORT-SPI (an extension for social and psychological interventions). We invite readers to participate in the project by visiting our website, in order to help us reach the best-informed consensus on these guidelines (http://tinyurl.com/CONSORT-study).
Related JoVE Video
Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews.
BMC Med Res Methodol
PUBLISHED: 08-22-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Critics of systematic reviews have argued that these studies often fail to inform clinical decision making because their results are far too general, that the data are sparse, such that findings cannot be applied to individual patients or for other decision making. While there is some consensus on methods for investigating statistical and methodological heterogeneity, little attention has been paid to clinical aspects of heterogeneity. Clinical heterogeneity, true effect heterogeneity, can be defined as variability among studies in the participants, the types or timing of outcome measurements, and the intervention characteristics. The objective of this project was to develop recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews.
Related JoVE Video
Developing a reporting guideline for social and psychological intervention trials.
Am J Public Health
PUBLISHED: 08-15-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Understanding randomized controlled trials of complex social and psychological interventions requires a detailed description of the interventions tested and the methods used to evaluate them. However, randomized controlled trial reports often omit, or inadequately report, this information. Incomplete and inaccurate reporting hinders the optimal use of research, wastes resources, and fails to meet ethical obligations to research participants and consumers. We explain how reporting guidelines have improved the quality of reports in medicine, and describe the ongoing development of a new reporting guideline for randomized controlled trials: an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for social and psychological interventions. We invite readers to participate in the project by visiting our Web site, to help us reach the best-informed consensus on these guidelines ( http://tinyurl.com/consort-study ).
Related JoVE Video
The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development.
Dtsch Arztebl Int
PUBLISHED: 08-13-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. Our primary objective was to develop, disseminate, and implement systematic reporting guidelines for case reports.
Related JoVE Video
The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case report guideline development.
J Clin Epidemiol
PUBLISHED: 08-02-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design.
Related JoVE Video
Developing a reporting guideline for social and psychological intervention trials.
Trials
PUBLISHED: 07-22-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Social and psychological interventions are often complex. Understanding randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of these complex interventions requires a detailed description of the interventions tested and the methods used to evaluate them; however, RCT reports often omit, or inadequately report, this information. Incomplete and inaccurate reporting hinders the optimal use of research, wastes resources, and fails to meet ethical obligations to research participants and consumers. In this paper, we explain how reporting guidelines have improved the quality of reports in medicine, and describe the ongoing development of a new reporting guideline for RCTs: CONSORT-SPI (an Extension for social and psychological interventions). We invite readers to participate in the project by visiting our website, in order to help us reach the best-informed consensus on these guidelines (http://tinyurl.com/CONSORT-study).
Related JoVE Video
Protocol for CONSORT-SPI: an extension for social and psychological interventions.
Implement Sci
PUBLISHED: 06-27-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Determining the effectiveness of social and psychological interventions is important for improving individual and population health. Such interventions are complex and, where possible, are best evaluated by randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The use of research findings in policy and practice decision making is hindered by poor reporting of RCTs. Poor reporting limits the ability to replicate interventions, synthesise evidence in systematic reviews, and utilise findings for evidence-based policy and practice. The lack of guidance for reporting the specific methodological features of complex intervention RCTs contributes to poor reporting. We aim to develop an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement for Social and Psychological Interventions (CONSORT-SPI).
Related JoVE Video
The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development.
J Med Case Rep
PUBLISHED: 06-26-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design.Primary Objective. Develop, disseminate, and implement systematic reporting guidelines for case reports.
Related JoVE Video
Bibliometric and content analysis of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field specialized register of controlled trials.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 06-25-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
The identification of eligible controlled trials for systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions can be difficult. To increase access to these difficult to locate trials, the Cochrane Collaboration Complementary Medicine Field (CAM Field) has established a specialized register of citations of CAM controlled trials. The objective of this study is to describe the sources and characteristics of citations included in the CAM Field specialized register.
Related JoVE Video
A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 06-24-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Systematic reviews (SRs) can become outdated as new evidence emerges over time. Organizations that produce SRs need a surveillance method to determine when reviews are likely to require updating. This report describes the development and initial results of a surveillance system to assess SRs produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program.
Related JoVE Video
Survey of the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews in rehabilitation.
Phys Ther
PUBLISHED: 06-06-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals.
Related JoVE Video
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care
PUBLISHED: 04-15-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
Related JoVE Video
Comparative effectiveness of monotherapies and combination therapies for patients with hypertension: protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analyses.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 04-04-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Hypertension has been cited as the most common attributable risk factor for death worldwide, and in Canada more than one of every five adults had this diagnosis in 2007. In addition to different lifestyle modifications, such as diet and exercise, there exist many pharmaco-therapies from different drug classes which can be used to lower blood pressure, thereby reducing the risk of serious clinical outcomes. In moderate and severe cases, more than one agent may be used. The optimal mono- and combination therapies for mild hypertension and moderate/severe hypertension are unclear, and clinical guidelines provide different recommendations for first line therapy. The objective of this review is to explore the relative benefits and safety of different pharmacotherapies for management of non-diabetic patients with hypertension, whether of a mild or moderate to severe nature.
Related JoVE Video
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
Value Health
PUBLISHED: 03-30-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
Related JoVE Video
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)--explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force.
Value Health
PUBLISHED: 03-30-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting.
Related JoVE Video
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
BMJ
PUBLISHED: 03-27-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
Related JoVE Video
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
Pharmacoeconomics
PUBLISHED: 03-27-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website ( www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp ).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
Related JoVE Video
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
Eur J Health Econ
PUBLISHED: 03-26-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website ( www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
Related JoVE Video
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
Clin Ther
PUBLISHED: 03-25-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website: (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
Related JoVE Video
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
J Med Econ
PUBLISHED: 03-25-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user-friendly, 24-item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). The hope is that CHEERS will lead to better reporting and, ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. Other journals and groups are encouraged to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.
Related JoVE Video
Systematic review of the effectiveness of training programs in writing for scholarly publication, journal editing, and manuscript peer review (protocol).
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 03-21-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
An estimated $100 billion is lost to waste in biomedical research globally, annually, much of which comes from the poor quality of published research. One area of waste involves bias in reporting research, which compromises the usability of published reports. In response, there has been an upsurge in interest and research in the scientific process of writing, editing, peer reviewing, and publishing (that is, journalology) of biomedical research. One reason for bias in reporting and the problem of unusable reports could be due to authors lacking knowledge or engaging in questionable practices while designing, conducting, or reporting their research. Another might be that the peer review process for journal publication has serious flaws, including possibly being ineffective, and having poorly trained and poorly motivated reviewers. Similarly, many journal editors have limited knowledge related to publication ethics. This can ultimately have a negative impact on the healthcare system. There have been repeated calls for better, more numerous training opportunities in writing for publication, peer review, and publishing. However, little research has taken stock of journalology training opportunities or evaluations of their effectiveness.
Related JoVE Video
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
Cost Eff Resour Alloc
PUBLISHED: 03-05-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
Related JoVE Video
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
BMC Med
PUBLISHED: 03-05-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication.The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp).We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in five years.
Related JoVE Video
Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension.
JAMA
PUBLISHED: 02-28-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement aims to improve the reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, it lacks guidance on the reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which are often inadequately reported in trials, thus limiting the value of these data. In this article, we describe the development of the CONSORT PRO extension based on the methodological framework for guideline development proposed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network. Five CONSORT PRO checklist items are recommended for RCTs in which PROs are primary or important secondary end points. These recommendations urge that the PROs be identified as a primary or secondary outcome in the abstract, that a description of the hypothesis of the PROs and relevant domains be provided (ie, if a multidimensional PRO tool has been used), that evidence of the PRO instruments validity and reliability be provided or cited, that the statistical approaches for dealing with missing data be explicitly stated, and that PRO-specific limitations of study findings and generalizability of results to other populations and clinical practice be discussed. Examples and an updated CONSORT flow diagram with PRO items are provided. It is recommended that the CONSORT PRO guidance supplement the standard CONSORT guidelines for reporting RCTs with PROs as primary or secondary outcomes. Improved reporting of PRO data should facilitate robust interpretation of the results from RCTs and inform patient care.
Related JoVE Video
Safety, effectiveness, and cost of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors versus intermediate acting insulin for type 2 diabetes: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 02-25-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) results from insulin resistance and relative insulin deficiency. T2DM treatment is a step-wise approach beginning with lifestyle modifications (for example, diet, exercise), followed by the addition of oral hypoglycemic agents (for example, metformin). Patients who do not respond to first-line therapy are offered second-line therapy (for example, sulfonylureas). Third-line therapy may include insulin and/or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors.It is unclear whether DPP-4 inhibitors are safer and more effective than intermediate acting insulin for third-line management of T2DM. As such, our objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitors versus intermediate acting insulin for T2DM patients who have failed both first- and second-line diabetes treatments.
Related JoVE Video
Safety, effectiveness, and cost of long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin for type 1 diabetes: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 02-22-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) causes progressive destruction of pancreatic beta cells leading to absolute insulin deficiency. Treatment of T1DM requires insulin, and some evidence suggests that longer acting insulin analogues might have a higher effectiveness and greater safety profile compared to intermediate-acting insulin. Our objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost of long-acting insulin versus intermediate-acting insulin through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Related JoVE Video
Safety of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery and chemotherapy: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 02-22-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are a class of antiemetic medications often used to prevent nausea and vomiting among patients undergoing chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. However, recent studies suggest that these agents might be associated with increased cardiac harm. To examine this further, we are proposing to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis on the comparative safety of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists among patients undergoing chemotherapy or surgery.
Related JoVE Video
Interventions to decrease the risk of adverse cardiac events for post-surgery or chemotherapy patients taking serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 02-22-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Patients undergoing surgery or chemotherapy often experience nausea and vomiting. To increase their quality of life and treatment satisfaction, antiemetic medication, such as serotonin receptor antagonists, is often prescribed for patients experiencing these symptoms. However, early warning signs suggest that serotonin receptor antagonists can cause harm, including arrhythmia. Our objective is to identify the most effective interventions that mitigate the risk of adverse cardiac events associated with serotonin receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery and chemotherapy through a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Related JoVE Video
Protocol for development of the guideline for reporting evidence based practice educational interventions and teaching (GREET) statement.
BMC Med Educ
PUBLISHED: 01-21-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
There are an increasing number of studies reporting the efficacy of educational strategies to facilitate the development of knowledge and skills underpinning evidence based practice (EBP). To date there is no standardised guideline for describing the teaching, evaluation, context or content of EBP educational strategies. The heterogeneity in the reporting of EBP educational interventions makes comparisons between studies difficult. The aim of this program of research is to develop the Guideline for Reporting EBP Educational interventions and Teaching (GREET) statement and an accompanying explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper.
Related JoVE Video
An evaluation of epidemiological and reporting characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews (SRs).
PLoS ONE
PUBLISHED: 01-14-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Systematic reviews (SRs) are abundant. The optimal reporting of SRs is critical to enable clinicians to use their findings to make informed treatment decisions. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies are widely used therefore it is critical that conduct and reporting of systematic research in this field be of high quality. Here, methodological and reporting characteristics of a sample of CAM-related SRs and a sample of control SRs are evaluated and compared.
Related JoVE Video
Testing the PRISMA-Equity 2012 reporting guideline: the perspectives of systematic review authors.
PLoS ONE
PUBLISHED: 01-01-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Reporting guidelines can be used to encourage standardised and comprehensive reporting of health research. In light of the global commitment to health equity, we have previously developed and published a reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012). The objectives of this study were to explore the utility of the equity extension items included in PRISMA-E 2012 from a systematic review author perspective, including facilitators and barriers to its use. This will assist in designing dissemination and knowledge translation strategies. We conducted a survey of systematic review authors to expose them to the new items in PRISMA-E 2012, establish the extent to which they had historically addressed those items in their own reviews, and gather feedback on the usefulness of the new items. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2008 and Stata (version 11.2 for Mac). Of 151 respondents completing the survey, 18.5% (95% CI: 12.7% to 25.7%) had not heard of the PRISMA statement before, although 83.4% (95% CI: 77.5% to 89.3%) indicated that they plan to use PRISMA-E 2012 in the future, depending on the focus of their review. Most (68.9%; 95% CI: 60.8% to 76.2%) thought that using PRISMA-E 2012 would lead them to conduct their reviews differently. Important facilitators to using PRISMA-E 2012 identified by respondents were journal endorsement and incorporation of the elements of the guideline into systematic review software. Barriers identified were lack of time, word limits and the availability of equity data in primary research. This study has been the first to road-test the new PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline and the findings are encouraging. They confirm the acceptability and potential utility of the guideline to assist review authors in reporting on equity in their reviews. The uptake and impact of PRISMA-E 2012 over time on design, conduct and reporting of primary research and systematic reviews should continue to be examined.
Related JoVE Video
Education in health research methodology: use of a wiki for knowledge translation.
PLoS ONE
PUBLISHED: 01-01-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
A research-practice gap exists between what is known about conducting methodologically rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and what is done. Evidence consistently shows that pediatric RCTs are susceptible to high risk of bias; therefore novel methods of influencing the design and conduct of trials are required. The objective of this study was to develop and pilot test a wiki designed to educate pediatric trialists and trainees in the principles involved in minimizing risk of bias in RCTs. The focus was on preliminary usability testing of the wiki.
Related JoVE Video
Quality improvement needed in quality improvement randomised trials: systematic review of interventions to improve care in diabetes.
BMJ Open
PUBLISHED: 01-01-2013
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Despite the increasing numbers of published trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions in diabetes, little is known about the risk of bias in this literature.
Related JoVE Video
Disclosure of investigators recruitment performance in multicenter clinical trials: a further step for research transparency.
PLoS Med.
PUBLISHED: 12-27-2011
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Rafael Dal-Ré and colleagues argue that the recruitment targets and performance of all site investigators in multi-centre clinical trials should be disclosed in trial registration sites before a trial starts, and when it ends.
Related JoVE Video
The long-term gastrointestinal functional outcomes following curative anterior resection in adults with rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Dis. Colon Rectum
PUBLISHED: 11-10-2011
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Significant variability and a lack of transparency exist in the reporting of anterior resection outcomes.
Related JoVE Video
CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
Int J Surg
PUBLISHED: 10-12-2011
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
Related JoVE Video
Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation.
PLoS ONE
PUBLISHED: 09-17-2011
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
In response to growing recognition of the value of prospective registration of systematic review protocols, we planned to develop a web-based open access international register. In order for the register to fulfil its aims of reducing unplanned duplication, reducing publication bias, and providing greater transparency, it was important to ensure the appropriate data were collected. We therefore undertook a consultation process with experts in the field to identify a minimum dataset for registration.
Related JoVE Video
Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
PUBLISHED: 09-09-2011
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
The importance of appraising the risk of bias of studies included in systematic reviews is well-established. However, uncertainty remains surrounding the method by which risk of bias assessments should be conducted. Specifically, no summary of evidence exists as to whether blinded (i.e. the assessor is unaware of the study authors name, institution, sponsorship, journal, etc.) versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias yield systematically different assessments in a systematic review.
Related JoVE Video
From QUOROM to PRISMA: a survey of high-impact medical journals instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature.
PLoS ONE
PUBLISHED: 09-08-2011
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement was published to help authors improve how they report systematic reviews. It is unknown how many journals mention PRISMA in their instructions to authors, or whether stronger journal language regarding use of PRISMA improves author compliance.
Related JoVE Video
An evaluation of the completeness of safety reporting in reports of complementary and alternative medicine trials.
BMC Complement Altern Med
PUBLISHED: 05-05-2011
Show Abstract
Hide Abstract
Adequate reporting of safety in publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is a pre-requisite for accurate and comprehensive profile evaluation of conventional as well as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. Clear and concise information on the definition, frequency, and severity of adverse events (AEs) is necessary for assessing the benefit-harm ratio of any intervention. The objectives of this study are to assess the quality of safety reporting in CAM RCTs; to explore the influence of different trial characteristics on the quality of safety reporting.
Related JoVE Video

What is Visualize?

JoVE Visualize is a tool created to match the last 5 years of PubMed publications to methods in JoVE's video library.

How does it work?

We use abstracts found on PubMed and match them to JoVE videos to create a list of 10 to 30 related methods videos.

Video X seems to be unrelated to Abstract Y...

In developing our video relationships, we compare around 5 million PubMed articles to our library of over 4,500 methods videos. In some cases the language used in the PubMed abstracts makes matching that content to a JoVE video difficult. In other cases, there happens not to be any content in our video library that is relevant to the topic of a given abstract. In these cases, our algorithms are trying their best to display videos with relevant content, which can sometimes result in matched videos with only a slight relation.