ARRIVE guidelines checklist
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
ORGANISM(S): Mus musculus (mouse)
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-BSST792 | biostudies-other |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description: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-independent human microbiome studies, and also developed new reporting elements for laboratory, bioinformatics and statistical analyses tailored to microbiome studies. The resulting tool, called 'Strengthening The Organization and Reporting of Microbiome Studies' (STORMS), is composed of a 17-item checklist organized into six sections that correspond to the typical sections of a scientific publication, presented as an editable table for inclusion in supplementary materials. The STORMS checklist provides guidance for concise and complete reporting of microbiome studies that will facilitate manuscript preparation, peer review, and reader comprehension of publications and comparative analysis of published results.
| S-EPMC9105086 | 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: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:BackgroundThe Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS) has been utilizing AGREE II to audit the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed in Korea. Monitoring the RIGHT Checklist adherence could help monitor the quality status and discover areas for improvement of CPG development.MethodsWe included 129 CPGs from the past 5 years and assessed each item of the RIGHT Checklist. STATA version 15.0 was used for statistical analysis.ResultsAmong the seven sections of the RIGHT checklist, sections with a full compliance rate over 60% were 'basic information' (65%) and 'background' (66%). The other sections' mean full compliance rates were 'Evidence' 52%, 'Recommendation' 35%, 'Review and quality assurance' 25% and 'Funding, declaration and management of interest' 17%. Sections with a partial compliance rate over 60% were 'Recommendation' (60%) and 'Funding, declaration and management of interest' (70%). Non-compliance was highest in the 'Review and quality assurance' (17%) domain. In comparison between groups 1 (under median group) and 2 (over median group), group 2 showed a tendency to have multi-stakeholder involvement and present sufficient information on financial resources and conflict of interest declarations. For the CPGs developmental methodology aspect, group 2 provided more pertinent information than group 1 about supporting evidence-making and the process from evidence to recommendation.ConclusionThis study evaluated adherence to the RIGHT Checklist of CPGs developed in Korea. It can provide helpful information to develop strategic plans for enhancing the capabilities of developing CPGs in Korea.
| S-EPMC8787803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The management of patients with novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) represents a new challenge for medical and surgical teams. Each operating room in the world should be prepared thoughtfully, and the development of a protocol and patient route seems mandatory. An adequate degree of protection must be used. We propose recommendations to help different professionals in the establishment of protocols for the management of patients with COVID-19. We also offer a checklist that could be used in the operating room.
| S-EPMC7194971 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImplementation of digital health technologies has grown rapidly, but many remain limited to pilot studies due to challenges, such as a lack of evidence or barriers to implementation. Overcoming these challenges requires learning from previous implementations and systematically documenting implementation processes to better understand the real-world impact of a technology and identify effective strategies for future implementation.ObjectiveA group of global experts, facilitated by the Geneva Digital Health Hub, developed the Guidelines and Checklist for the Reporting on Digital Health Implementations (iCHECK-DH, pronounced "I checked") to improve the completeness of reporting on digital health implementations.MethodsA guideline development group was convened to define key considerations and criteria for reporting on digital health implementations. To ensure the practicality and effectiveness of the checklist, it was pilot-tested by applying it to several real-world digital health implementations, and adjustments were made based on the feedback received. The guiding principle for the development of iCHECK-DH was to identify the minimum set of information needed to comprehensively define a digital health implementation, to support the identification of key factors for success and failure, and to enable others to replicate it in different settings.ResultsThe result was a 20-item checklist with detailed explanations and examples in this paper. The authors anticipate that widespread adoption will standardize the quality of reporting and, indirectly, improve implementation standards and best practices.ConclusionsGuidelines for reporting on digital health implementations are important to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and consistency of reported information. This allows for meaningful comparison and evaluation of results, transparency, and accountability and informs stakeholder decision-making. i-CHECK-DH facilitates standardization of the way information is collected and reported, improving systematic documentation and knowledge transfer that can lead to the development of more effective digital health interventions and better health outcomes.
| S-EPMC10209789 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based practice (EBP) is the cornerstone of sound patient care. Despite the known importance of disseminating EBP, of the 600 reporting guidelines registered with the EQUATOR network, none exist on reporting an EBP project. This lack of guidance leads to publications that lack rigor and discourages more novice writers who may not know where to begin.AimsThe purpose of this study was to establish Reporting Guidelines for EBP projects by achieving consensus among subject matter experts (SMEs) regarding the required components for a high-quality report.MethodsThis study followed a modified Delphi technique. The first round solicited free-text responses regarding reporting sections and sub-sections. The team analyzed these results and incorporated information from the literature to generate items for the second round. In the second and third rounds, participants ranked each section on a Likert scale of 1-4 (not relevant to extremely relevant) and provided free-text revision suggestions. Items that reached a 70% consensus moved from one round to the next.ResultsSMEs reached consensus on 6 sections and 30 sub-sections. Sections address the process for determining best practice recommendations as well as implementation into practice. Headers include (1) "Introduction," (2) "EBP Design," (3) "Methods to Generate Recommendations," (4) "Evidence Findings," (5) "Implementation," and (6) "Conclusion." All items are unaffiliated with specific EBP models, hierarchies, or question formats.Linking evidence to actionThe Reporting Guidelines for EBP Projects is a checklist of items with associated descriptors that should be addressed in articles reporting an EBP project. The intention is to provide a roadmap of the items required to publish EBP efforts. It is meant to create a set of expectation for journal editors to provide concrete guidance for authors and elevate the quality and quantity of EBP projects in the literature.
| S-EPMC11655773 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5118873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough several tools to evaluate the credibility of health care guidelines exist, guidance on practical steps for developing guidelines is lacking. We systematically compiled a comprehensive checklist of items linked to relevant resources and tools that guideline developers could consider, without the expectation that every guideline would address each item.MethodsWe searched data sources, including manuals of international guideline developers, literature on guidelines for guidelines (with a focus on methodology reports from international and national agencies, and professional societies) and recent articles providing systematic guidance. We reviewed these sources in duplicate, extracted items for the checklist using a sensitive approach and developed overarching topics relevant to guidelines. In an iterative process, we reviewed items for duplication and omissions and involved experts in guideline development for revisions and suggestions for items to be added.ResultsWe developed a checklist with 18 topics and 146 items and a webpage to facilitate its use by guideline developers. The topics and included items cover all stages of the guideline enterprise, from the planning and formulation of guidelines, to their implementation and evaluation. The final checklist includes links to training materials as well as resources with suggested methodology for applying the items.InterpretationThe checklist will serve as a resource for guideline developers. Consideration of items on the checklist will support the development, implementation and evaluation of guidelines. We will use crowdsourcing to revise the checklist and keep it up to date.
| S-EPMC3928232 | biostudies-literature
