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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In human medicine, the information infrastructure that supports the knowledge translation processes of exchange, synthesis, dissemination, and application of the best clinical intervention research has developed significantly in the past 15 years, facilitating the uptake of research evidence by clinicians as well as the practice of evidence-based medicine. Seven of the key elements of this improved information infrastructure are clinical trial registries, research reporting standards, systematic reviews, organizations that support the production of systematic reviews, the indexing of clinical intervention research in MEDLINE, clinical search filters for MEDLINE, and point-of-care decision support information resources. The objective of this paper is to describe why these elements are important for evidence-based medicine, the key developments and issues related to these seven information infrastructure elements in human medicine, how these 7 elements compare with the corresponding infrastructure elements in veterinary medicine, and how all of these factors affect the translation of clinical intervention research into clinical practice. A focused search of the Ovid MEDLINE database was conducted for English language journal literature published between 2000 and 2010. Two bibliographies were consulted and selected national and international Web sites were searched using Google. The literature reviewed indicates that the information infrastructure supporting evidence-based veterinary medicine practice in all of the 7 elements reviewed is significantly underdeveloped in relation to the corresponding information infrastructure in human medicine. This lack of development creates barriers to the timely translation of veterinary medicine research into clinical practice and also to the conduct of both primary clinical intervention research and synthesis research.
    Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 06/2011; 38(2):123-34. DOI:10.3138/jvme.38.2.123 · 0.83 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Understanding how veterinary practitioners make clinical decisions, and how they use scientific information to inform their decisions, is important to optimize animal care, client satisfaction, and veterinary education. We aimed to develop an understanding of private practitioners' process of decision making. On the basis of a grounded-theory qualitative approach, we conducted a telephone survey and semi-structured face-to-face interviews. We identified a decision-making framework consisting of two possible processes to make decisions, five steps in the management of a clinical case, and three influencing factors. To inform their decision, veterinary surgeons rarely take the evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach. They consult first-opinion colleagues, specialists, laboratories, and the Internet rather than scientific databases and peer-reviewed literature, mainly because of limited time. Most interviewees suggested the development of educational interventions to better develop decision-making skills in veterinary schools. Adequate information and EBM tools are needed to optimize the time spent in query and assessment of scientific information, and practitioners need to be trained in their use.
    Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 06/2012; 39(2):142-51. DOI:10.3138/jvme.0911.098R1 · 0.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Accurate and full reporting of evaluation of interventions in health research is needed for evidence synthesis and informed decision-making. Evidence suggests that biases and incomplete reporting affect the assessment of study validity and the ability to include this data in secondary research. The Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was developed to improve the transparency and accuracy of the reporting of behavioural and public health evaluations with non-randomised designs. Evaluations of reporting guidelines have shown that they can be effective in improving reporting completeness. Although TREND occupies a niche within reporting guidelines, and despite it being 8 years since publication, no study yet has assessed its impact on reporting completeness or investigated what factors affect its use by authors and journal editors. This protocol describes two studies that aim to redress this. Methods and analysis Study 1 will use an observational design to examine the uptake and use of TREND by authors, and by journals in their instructions to authors. A comparison of reporting completeness and study quality of papers that do and do not use TREND to inform reporting will be made. Study 2 will use a cross-sectional survey to investigate what factors inhibit or facilitate authors’ and journal editors’ use of TREND. Semistructured interviews will also be conducted with a subset of authors and editors to explore findings from study 1 and the surveys in greater depth. Ethics and dissemination These studies will generate evidence of how implementation and dissemination of the TREND guideline has affected reporting completeness in studies with experimental, non-randomised designs within behavioural and public health research. The project has received ethics approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth.
    BMJ Open 10/2012; 2(6). DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002073 · 2.06 Impact Factor