Reporting guidelines for human microbiome research: the STORMS checklist.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mirzayi C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9105086 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Reporting guidelines for human microbiome research: the STORMS checklist.
Mirzayi Chloe C Renson Audrey A Zohra Fatima F Elsafoury Shaimaa S Geistlinger Ludwig L Kasselman Lora J LJ Eckenrode Kelly K van de Wijgert Janneke J Loughman Amy A Marques Francine Z FZ MacIntyre David A DA Arumugam Manimozhiyan M Azhar Rimsha R Beghini Francesco F Bergstrom Kirk K Bhatt Ami A Bisanz Jordan E JE Braun Jonathan J Bravo Hector Corrada HC Buck Gregory A GA Bushman Frederic F Casero David D Clarke Gerard G Collado Maria Carmen MC Cotter Paul D PD Cryan John F JF Demmer Ryan T RT Devkota Suzanne S Elinav Eran E Escobar Juan S JS Fettweis Jennifer J Finn Robert D RD Fodor Anthony A AA Forslund Sofia S Franke Andre A Furlanello Cesare C Gilbert Jack J Grice Elizabeth E Haibe-Kains Benjamin B Handley Scott S Herd Pamela P Holmes Susan S Jacobs Jonathan P JP Karstens Lisa L Knight Rob R Knights Dan D Koren Omry O Kwon Douglas S DS Langille Morgan M Lindsay Brianna B McGovern Dermot D McHardy Alice C AC McWeeney Shannon S Mueller Noel T NT Nezi Luigi L Olm Matthew M Palm Noah N Pasolli Edoardo E Raes Jeroen J Redinbo Matthew R MR Rühlemann Malte M Balfour Sartor R R Schloss Patrick D PD Schriml Lynn L Segal Eran E Shardell Michelle M Sharpton Thomas T Smirnova Ekaterina E Sokol Harry H Sonnenburg Justin L JL Srinivasan Sujatha S Thingholm Louise B LB Turnbaugh Peter J PJ Upadhyay Vaibhav V Walls Ramona L RL Wilmes Paul P Yamada Takuji T Zeller Georg G Zhang Mingyu M Zhao Ni N Zhao Liping L Bao Wenjun W Culhane Aedin A Devanarayan Viswanath V Dopazo Joaquin J Fan Xiaohui X Fischer Matthias M Jones Wendell W Kusko Rebecca R Mason Christopher E CE Mercer Tim R TR Sansone Susanna-Assunta SA Scherer Andreas A Shi Leming L Thakkar Shraddha S Tong Weida W Wolfinger Russ R Hunter Christopher C Segata Nicola N Huttenhower Curtis C Dowd Jennifer B JB Jones Heidi E HE Waldron Levi L
Nature medicine 20211117 11
The particularly interdisciplinary nature of human microbiome research makes the organization and reporting of results spanning epidemiology, biology, bioinformatics, translational medicine and statistics a challenge. Commonly used reporting guidelines for observational or genetic epidemiology studies lack key features specific to microbiome studies. Therefore, a multidisciplinary group of microbiome epidemiology researchers adapted guidelines for observational and genetic studies to culture-ind ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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: Not available
| S-EPMC5118873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPublic or patient versions of guidelines (PVGs) are derivative documents that "translate" recommendations and their rationale from clinical guidelines for health professionals into a more easily understandable and usable format for patients and the public. PVGs from different groups and organizations vary considerably in terms of quality of their reporting. In order to address this issue, we aimed to develop a reporting checklist for developers of PVGs and other potential users.MethodsFirst, we collected a list of potential items through reviewing a sample of PVGs, existing guidance for developing and reporting PVGs or other similar evidence-based patient tools, as well as qualitative studies on original studies of patients' needs about the content and/or reporting of information in PVGs or similar evidence-based patient tools. Second, we conducted a two-round Delphi consultation to determine the level of consensus on the items to be included in the final reporting checklist. Third, we invited two external reviewers to provide comments on the checklist.ResultsWe generated the initial list of 45 reporting items based on a review of a sample of 30 PVGs, four PVG guidance documents, and 46 relevant studies. After the two-round Delphi consultation, we formed a checklist of 17 items grouped under 12 topics for reporting PVGs.ConclusionThe RIGHT-PVG reporting checklist provides an international consensus on the important criteria for reporting PVGs.
| S-EPMC7798200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveClinical guidelines are designed to optimise patient care and provide efficient approaches for therapy. Epilepsy is a chronic brain disorder that continues to experience a considerable treatment gap due to non-standard recommendations. We assessed the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on epilepsy over the past 5 years to generate a reporting specification for this study.SettingSeven databases were searched in May 2018 focusing on the period from 2013 to 2018. These included Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP). Reporting quality of epilepsy guidelines was assessed by two independent authors using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) approach. Spearman's correlation was used to assess inter-rater reliability.ParticipantsParticipants with epilepsy or seizure, not limited by age, gender, course of disease or cause of epilepsy, were included.InterventionsThere were no limitations with regard to intervention.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe outcome was the ability of the RIGHT tool to measure reporting quality.ResultsTwelve relevant guidelines were included in this study. The reporting quality was not high in any of the included guidelines. The highest reporting quality included a 'yes' proportion of 77.1%, whereas the worst included a corresponding proportion of 37.1%. Overall evaluation results showed that 16.7% of the included guidelines were of high quality, 75% were of medium quality and 8.3% were of low quality. The correlation between the two estimators was credible (ρ>0.7).ConclusionsAppraisal of these guidelines using the RIGHT tool revealed that the quality of reporting varied among guidelines. Items that exhibited low quality in most included guidelines were healthcare questions, rationale/explanation for recommendations, quality assurance, funding source(s) and role(s) of the funder, and limitations of the guideline. Thus, these aspects should receive greater attention in future guideline reporting.
| S-EPMC6924717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines are an essential tool for translating evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist assists to guide the reporting in guidelines. We used RIGHT to assess the reporting completeness and quality of guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsWe searched the electronic databases Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) from January 1st, 2018 to December 1st, 2020 for guidelines on CRC. Websites of guideline development organizations were also searched. Two investigators assessed the reporting quality of the included guidelines, and calculated the numbers of guidelines that were compliant with each RIGHT checklist item and the mean proportions of reported items for each of the seven RIGHT checklist domains.ResultsTwenty-seven colorectal guidelines were included. The proportions of reported items in each RIGHT domain were 71.0% for Basic information, 66.2% for Background, 45.9% for Evidence, 68.8% for Recommendations, 24.1% for Review and quality assurance, 33.3% for Funding and declaration and management of interests, and 40.7% for Other information.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of colorectal guidelines was moderate. A systematic use of the RIGHT checklist during the development process could improve the reporting quality of guidelines in the future.
| S-EPMC8350680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth practice guidelines (HPGs) are important tools for the translation of evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist provides guidance on reporting health practice guidelines (HPGs). We assessed the reporting completeness and quality of a set of national (Croatian) and relevant transnational (European) HPGs.MethodsThe national sample included all HPGs published in the official journal of the Croatian Medical Association in 2014-2016. We searched PubMed to identify relevant European guidelines (n = 24). Two independent reviewers assessed the adherence with the items on the RIGHT checklist. Kappa score was used to measure the level of agreement. Frequentist and Bayes statistics Bayes factor (BF10) was used to evaluate the differences between the national and transnational HPGs.ResultsOverall, Croatian and European HPGs adhered to less than 50% of RIGHT checklist items. Croatian HPGs reported a median of 14.0 (95% CI 13.0-15.0) RIGHT reporting items, and European counterparts reported a median of 16.0 (95% CI 14.0-17.2) out of the total of 35 checklist items (Mann Whitney U test, P = 0.048; BF10 = 1.543). European HPGs were better than Croatian HPGs in reporting stakeholder involvement and values and preferences (BF10 = 80.63), as well as describing the implications of costs and resources (BF10 = 55.15). Croatian HPGs better reported HPGs specified aims (BF10 = 16.90), primary intended users (BF10 = 8.70), and sources of funding (BF10 = 122.90). Most insufficiently reported items for both HPG sets were defining the guideline questions and clear outcomes, quality assurance, management of funding and conflicts of interest, and guideline limitations.ConclusionsImportant methodological details are missing from most published HPGs at national and transnational levels. To ensure better quality and adequate use of HPGs, reporting guidelines should be endorsed and used by developers and users alike.
| S-EPMC6206632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
| S-EPMC7610926 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
| S-EPMC7359286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
| S-EPMC7360023 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the "ARRIVE Essential 10," which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the "Recommended Set," which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.
| S-EPMC7393194 | biostudies-literature