Reporting guidelines for primary research Saying what you did

Department of Veterinary Diagnostic & Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, USA.
Preventive Veterinary Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.51). 10/2010; 97(3-4):144-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2010.09.010
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Reporting guidelines aim to facilitate publication of a full and accurate description of research conducted. The motivations for a full and accurate description of research is to enable reproduction of the study, assessment of bias, extraction of data from the study, and to fulfill an ethical obligation to maximize the utility of research findings. Many reporting guidelines exist and most are based on a specific study design such as randomized controlled trials (CONSORT statement) and observational studies (STROBE statement). The REFLECT statement focuses on randomized control trials in livestock and food safety studies. The REFLECT statement has increased emphasis on conveying information about animal housing, group level allocation and challenge studies. Guidelines can be used by authors, reviewers and editors to provide readers with a full and accurate description of the work conducted.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Carbapenem-hydrolyzing beta-lactamases are the most powerful mechanism of resistance to carbapenems. Carbapenemases have been reported extensively worldwide now in Enterobacteriaceae. Carbapenemases of the KPC type have been reported first from the USA in Klebsiella pneumoniae, then worldwide with a marked endemicity in Israel and Greece. Metallo-enzymes (VIM, IMP…) have been also reported internationnaly with high prevalence in Southern Europe and Asia. OXA-48 which is one of the latest carbapenemases reported differs structurally from the other carbapenemases and have been identified mostly from Mediterranean countries. These carbapenemase genes are mostly plasmid located in K. pneumoniae from nosocomial origin. They have been also identified as a source of community-acquired infections. Carbapenemase producers are also multidrug resistant explaining the difficulty to treat infections. Detection of infected patients and carriers remain difficult which may explain an underlying spread with dramatic therapeutic consequences.
    Archives de Pédiatrie 09/2010; 17. DOI:10.1016/S0929-693X(10)70918-0 · 0.41 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Observational studies are common in veterinary medicine; the results may be used to inform decision-making, future research, or as inputs to systematic reviews or risk assessment. To be of use, the results must be published, all of the outcomes that were assessed must be included in the publication, and the research (methods and results) must be reported in sufficient detail that the reader can evaluate the internal and external validity. In human healthcare, concerns about the completeness of reporting - and evidence that poor reporting is associated with study results - have led to the creation of reporting guidelines; these include the STROBE statement for observational studies. There is evidence from a limited body of research that there also are reporting inadequacies in veterinary observational studies. There are differences between human and veterinary observational studies that might be relevant to recommendations for reporting. Such differences include: the use of observational studies in animal populations for simultaneously estimating disease frequency and risk-factor identification; the distinction between the animal owners who consent to participate and the animals that are the study subjects; and the complexity of organizational levels inherent in animal research (in particular, for studies in livestock species). In veterinary medicine, it is common to have clustering within outcomes (due to animal grouping) and clustering of predictor variables. We argue that there is a compelling need for the scientific community involved in veterinary observational studies to use the STROBE statement, use an amended version of STROBE, or to develop and use reporting guidelines that are specific to veterinary medicine to improve reporting of these studies.
    Preventive Veterinary Medicine 09/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.09.004 · 2.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Wider adoption of reporting guidelines by veterinary journals could improve the quality of published veterinary research. The aims of this study were to assess the knowledge and views of veterinary Editors-in-Chief on reporting guidelines, identify the policies of their journals, and determine their information needs. Editors-in-Chief of 185 journals on the contact list for the International Association of Veterinary Editors (IAVE) were surveyed in April 2012 using an online questionnaire which contained both closed and open questions. The response rate was 36.8% (68/185). Thirty-six of 68 editors (52.9%) stated they knew what a reporting guideline was before receiving the questionnaire. Editors said they had found out about reporting guidelines primarily through articles in other journals, via the Internet and through their own journal. Twenty of 57 respondents (35.1%) said their journal referred to reporting guidelines in its instructions to authors. CONSORT, REFLECT, and ARRIVE were the most frequently cited. Forty-four of 68 respondents (68.2%) believed that reporting guidelines should be adopted by all refereed veterinary journals. Qualitative analysis of the open questions revealed that lack of knowledge, fear, resistance to change, and difficulty in implementation were perceived as barriers to the adoption of reporting guidelines by journals. Editors suggested that reporting guidelines be promoted through communication and education of the veterinary community, with roles for the IAVE and universities. Many respondents believed a consensus policy on guideline implementation was needed for veterinary journals. Further communication and education about reporting guidelines for editors, authors and reviewers has the potential to increase their adoption by veterinary journals in the future.
    BMC Veterinary Research 01/2014; 10(1):10. DOI:10.1186/1746-6148-10-10 · 1.74 Impact Factor