Improving Reporting of Clinical Studies Using the POSEIDON Criteria: POSORT Guidelines.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Esteves SC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8017440 | biostudies-literature | 2021
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Improving Reporting of Clinical Studies Using the POSEIDON Criteria: POSORT Guidelines.
Esteves Sandro C SC Conforti Alessandro A Sunkara Sesh K SK Carbone Luigi L Picarelli Silvia S Vaiarelli Alberto A Cimadomo Danilo D Rienzi Laura L Ubaldi Filippo Maria FM Zullo Fulvio F Andersen Claus Yding CY Orvieto Raoul R Humaidan Peter P Alviggi Carlo C
Frontiers in endocrinology 20210319
The POSEIDON (<b>P</b>atient-<b>O</b>riented <b>S</b>trategies <b>E</b>ncompassing <b>I</b>ndividualize<b>D O</b>ocyte <b>N</b>umber) criteria were developed to help clinicians identify and classify low-prognosis patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and provide guidance for possible therapeutic strategies to overcome infertility. Since its introduction, the number of published studies using the POSEIDON criteria has increased steadily. However, a critical analysis of existi ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The biomedical research community addresses reproducibility challenges in animal studies through standardized nomenclature, improved experimental design, transparent reporting, data sharing, and centralized repositories. The ARRIVE guidelines outline documentation standards for laboratory animals in experiments, but genetic information is often incomplete. To remedy this, we propose the Laboratory Animal Genetic Reporting (LAG-R) framework. LAG-R aims to document animals' genetic makeup in scientific publications, providing essential details for replication and appropriate model use. While verifying complete genetic compositions may be impractical, better reporting and validation efforts enhance reliability of research. LAG-R standardization will bolster reproducibility, peer review, and overall scientific rigor.
| S-EPMC11220107 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the global imperative to address health inequities. Observational studies are a valuable source of evidence for real-world effects and impacts of implementing COVID-19 policies on the redistribution of inequities. We assembled a diverse global multi-disciplinary team to develop interim guidance for improving transparency in reporting health equity in COVID-19 observational studies. We identified 14 areas in the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist that need additional detail to encourage transparent reporting of health equity. We searched for examples of COVID-19 observational studies that analysed and reported health equity analysis across one or more social determinants of health. We engaged with Indigenous stakeholders and others groups experiencing health inequities to co-produce this guidance and to bring an intersectional lens. Taking health equity and social determinants of health into account contributes to the clinical and epidemiological understanding of the disease, identifying specific needs and supporting decision-making processes. Stakeholders are encouraged to consider using this guidance on observational research to help provide evidence to close the inequitable gaps in health outcomes.
| S-EPMC8431098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScientific knowledge is in constant development. Consequently, regular review to assure the trustworthiness of clinical guidelines is required. However, there is still a lack of preferred reporting items of the updating process in updated clinical guidelines. The present article describes the development process of the Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp).Methods and findingsWe developed an initial list of items based on an overview of research evidence on clinical guideline updating, the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument, and the advice of the CheckUp panel (n = 33 professionals). A multistep process was used to refine this list, including an assessment of ten existing updated clinical guidelines, interviews with key informants (response rate: 54.2%; 13/24), a three-round Delphi consensus survey with the CheckUp panel (33 participants), and an external review with clinical guideline methodologists (response rate: 90%; 53/59) and users (response rate: 55.6%; 10/18). CheckUp includes 16 items that address (1) the presentation of an updated guideline, (2) editorial independence, and (3) the methodology of the updating process. In this article, we present the methodology to develop CheckUp and include as a supplementary file an explanation and elaboration document.ConclusionsCheckUp can be used to evaluate the completeness of reporting in updated guidelines and as a tool to inform guideline developers about reporting requirements. Editors may request its completion from guideline authors when submitting updated guidelines for publication. Adherence to CheckUp will likely enhance the comprehensiveness and transparency of clinical guideline updating for the benefit of patients and the public, health care professionals, and other relevant stakeholders.
| S-EPMC5224740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMost retractions of obstetrics and gynecology manuscripts are because of scientific misconduct. It would be preferable to prevent randomized controlled trials with scientific misconduct from ever appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, rather than to have to retract them later.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the policies of obstetrics and gynecology and top medical journals in their author guidelines and electronic submission systems regarding prospective randomized controlled trial registration, ethics committee approval, research protocols, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guidelines, and data sharing and to detect the most common quality criteria requested for randomized controlled trials in these journals.Study designAuthor guidelines were identified via online Google searches from the websites of selected peer-reviewed medical journals. Journals in obstetrics and gynecology were selected from the list of journals with impact factors based on the Journal Citation Report released by Clarivate Analytics on June 29, 2020, focusing on those publishing original clinical research in obstetrics, in particular randomized controlled trials. In addition, 4 of the top impact factor peer-reviewed general medical journals publishing randomized controlled trials were included. The requirements for selected quality criteria for randomized controlled trials analyzed in the author guidelines for each journal were details of 5 general issues: prospective randomized controlled trial registration (4 subcategories), ethics committee approval (4 subcategories), research protocol (3 subcategories), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines (3 subcategories), and data sharing (3 subcategories). To evaluate the requirements within the electronic submission system, a mock submission of a randomized controlled trial was also done for each journal, and the same criteria were assessed on the online software for submission. The primary outcome was the overall percentage for each of the quality criteria that were listed as required within the author guidelines or required in the submission system among all journals. Planned subgroup analyses were top general medicine vs obstetrics and gynecology journals and top 4 obstetrics and gynecology vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals.ResultsMost studied peer-reviewed journals listed in their author guidelines 7 specific criteria for submission of randomized controlled trials: prospective registration and registration number, statement of ethical approval with name of approving committee and statement of informed consent, statement of adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and data sharing statement. For most journals, the submission software did not require these or any other criteria for submission. There were minimal differences in criteria listed for top medical journals vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals and among top vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals.ConclusionProspective registration and registration number, statement of ethical approval with name of approving committee and statement of informed consent, statement of adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and data sharing statement are the randomized controlled trial quality criteria requested by leading medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals. These obstetrics and gynecology journals agree to make, as much as possible, these criteria uniform and mandatory in author guidelines and also through improved submission software.
| S-EPMC8324065 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp) was recently developed. However, so far, no systematic assessment of the reporting of updated clinical guidelines (CGs) exists. We aimed to examine (1) the completeness of reporting the updating process in CGs and (2) the inter-observer reliability of CheckUp.MethodsWe conducted a systematic assessment of the reporting of the updating process in a sample of updated CGs using CheckUp. We performed a systematic search to identify updated CGs published in 2015, developed by a professional society, reporting a systematic review of the evidence, and containing at least one recommendation. Three reviewers independently assessed the CGs with CheckUp (16 items). We calculated the median score per item, per domain, and overall, converting scores to a 10-point scale. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to identify differences according to country, type of organisation, scope, and health topic of updated CGs. We calculated the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for domains and overall score.ResultsWe included in total 60 updated CGs. The median domain score on a 10-point scale for presentation was 5.8 (range 1.7 to 10), for editorial independence 8.3 (range 3.3 to 10), and for methodology 5.7 (range 0 to 10). The median overall score on a 10-point scale was 6.3 (range 3.1 to 10). Presentation and justification items at recommendation level (respectively reported by 27 and 38% of the CGs) and the methods used for the external review and implementing changes in practice were particularly poorly reported (both reported by 38% of the CGs). CGs developed by a European or international institution obtained a statistically significant higher overall score compared to North American or Asian institutions (p = 0.014). Finally, the agreement among the reviewers on the overall score was excellent (ICC 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95).ConclusionsThe reporting of updated CGs varies considerably with significant room for improvement. We recommend using CheckUp to assess the updating process in updated CGs and as a blueprint to inform methods and reporting strategies in updating.
| S-EPMC5639761 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9622469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Electrochemotherapy is becoming a well-established treatment for malignancies of skin and non-skin origin and its use is widening across Europe. The technique was developed and optimized from solid experimental and clinical evidence. A consensus document is now warranted to formalize reporting results, which should strengthen evidence-based practice recommendations. This consensus should be derived from high quality clinical data collection, clinical expertise and summarizing patient feedback. The first step, which is addressed in this paper, aims to critically analyze the quality of published studies and to provide the recommendations for reporting clinical trials on electrochemotherapy. METHODS:The quality of reporting in published studies on electrochemotherapy was analyzed in order to produce procedure specific reporting recommendations. A comprehensive literature search of studies published from 2006 to 2015 was performed followed by qualitative analysis of manuscripts assessing for 47 quality criteria grouped into four major clusters: (1) trial design, (2) description of patient population, (3) description of treatment delivery and patient outcome, (4) analysis of results and their interpretation. The summary measure during literature assessment was the proportion of studies fulfilling each manuscript quality criteria. RESULTS:A total of 56 studies were screened, from the period 2006 to 2015, of which 33 were included in the qualitative analysis, with a total of 1215 patients. Overall, the quality of reporting was highly variable. Twenty-four reports (73%) were single-center, non-comparative studies, and only 15 (45%) were prospective in nature (only 2 of them were entered into a clinical trials registry). Electrochemotherapy technique was consistently reported, with most studies (31/33) adhering closely to published standard operating procedures. The quality of reporting the patient population was variable among the analyzed studies, with only between 45% and 100% achieving dedicated quality criteria. Reporting of treatment delivery and patient outcome was also highly variable with studies only fulfilling between 3% and 100%. Finally, reporting study results critically varied, fulfilling from 27% to 100% of the quality criteria. Based on the critical issues emerging from this analysis, recommendations and minimal requirements for reporting clinical data on electrochemotherapy were prepared and summarized into a checklist. CONCLUSIONS:There is an increasing body of published clinical data on electrochemotherapy, but more high quality clinical data are needed. Published papers often lack accurate description of study population, treatment delivery as well as patient outcome. Our recommendations, provided in the form of a summary checklist, are intended to ameliorate data reporting in future studies on electrochemotherapy and help researchers to provide a solid evidence basis for clinical practice.
| S-EPMC4825335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality of Tuina clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).MethodsComputer searches of China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Technical Periodicals (VIP), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other databases were conducted to search for published guidelines on Tuina, with a search time frame from database creation to March 2021. Four evaluators independently used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument to evaluate the quality of the included guidelines.ResultsA total of eight guidelines related to Tuina were included in this study. The quality of reporting was low in all included guidelines. The highest quality report had a total score of 404 and was rated as "highly recommended." The worst guideline had a final score of 241 and was rated as "not recommended." Overall, 25% of the included guidelines were recommended for clinical use, 37.5% were recommended after revision, and 37.5% were not recommended.ConclusionThe number of existing Tuina clinical practice guidelines is limited. The methodological quality is low, far from the internationally accepted clinical practice guideline development and reporting norms. In the future, reporting specifications of guidelines and the methodology of guideline development, including the rigor of the guideline development process, the clarity, application, and independence of reporting, should be emphasized in the development of the Tuina guidelines. These initiatives could improve the quality and applicability of clinical practice guidelines to guide and standardize the clinical practice of Tuina.
| S-EPMC10152900 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Preclinical studies for wound healing disorders are an essential step in translating discoveries into therapies. Also, they are an integral component of initial safety screening and gaining mechanistic insights using an in vivo approach. Given the complexity of the wound healing process, existing guidelines for animal testing do not capture key information due to the inevitable variability in experimental design. Variations in study interpretation are increased by complexities associated with wound aetiology, wounding procedure, multiple treatment conditions, wound assessment, and analysis, as well as lack of acknowledgement of limitation of the model used. Yet, no standards exist to guide reporting crucial experimental information required to interpret results in translational studies of wound healing. Consistency in reporting allows transparency, comparative, and meta-analysis studies and avoids repetition and redundancy. Therefore, there is a critical and unmet need to standardise reporting for preclinical wound studies. To aid in reporting experimental conditions, The Wound Reporting in Animal and Human Preclinical Studies (WRAHPS) Guidelines have now been created by the authors working with the Wound Care Collaborative Community (WCCC) GAPS group to provide a checklist and reporting template for the most frequently used preclinical models in support of development for human clinical trials for wound healing disorders. It is anticipated that the WRAHPS Guidelines will standardise comprehensive methods for reporting in scientific manuscripts and the wound healing field overall. This article is not intended to address regulatory requirements but is intended to provide general guidelines on important scientific considerations for such studies.
| S-EPMC11621255 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveRoutinely collected health data, collected for administrative and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and availability of routinely collected data for research has brought to light specific issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines. The aim of the present project was to determine the priorities of stakeholders in order to guide the development of the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement.MethodsTwo modified electronic Delphi surveys were sent to stakeholders. The first determined themes deemed important to include in the RECORD statement, and was analyzed using qualitative methods. The second determined quantitative prioritization of the themes based on categorization of manuscript headings. The surveys were followed by a meeting of RECORD working committee, and re-engagement with stakeholders via an online commentary period.ResultsThe qualitative survey (76 responses of 123 surveys sent) generated 10 overarching themes and 13 themes derived from existing STROBE categories. Highest-rated overall items for inclusion were: Disease/exposure identification algorithms; Characteristics of the population included in databases; and Characteristics of the data. In the quantitative survey (71 responses of 135 sent), the importance assigned to each of the compiled themes varied depending on the manuscript section to which they were assigned. Following the working committee meeting, online ranking by stakeholders provided feedback and resulted in revision of the final checklist.ConclusionsThe RECORD statement incorporated the suggestions provided by a large, diverse group of stakeholders to create a reporting checklist specific to observational research using routinely collected health data. Our findings point to unique aspects of studies conducted with routinely collected health data and the perceived need for better reporting of methodological issues.
| S-EPMC4428635 | biostudies-literature