bs_bs_banner
EDITORIAL
Towards better-quality research reporting in Respirology Key words: meta-analysis, observational study, randomized controlled trial, statistics, systematic review.
Abbreviations: CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; MOOSE, Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Over the last two years, Respirology has endorsed several guidelines with the aim of improving the reporting, transparency and consistency of the research it publishes. This editorial highlights these endorsements and the related changes in journal policy. Author guidelines published on the Respirology website clearly outline these reporting guidelines requirements. We encourage authors to take the time to ensure their manuscripts meet the basic reporting needs and thereby improve the quality of their manuscript and increase its likelihood of publication.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES In recent years, Respirology has seen an increase in the submission of systematic reviews and meta-analyses papers. These types of reviews can play an important role in educating clinicians, directing research and determining health-care policy and it is therefore imperative that the information they provide is accurate and complete. To help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of controlled trials, the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement1 was developed, consisting of a 27-item checklist and a flow diagram, published in conjunction with the PRISMA explanatory and elaboration document.2 Such endorsement by medical journals of the PRISMA statement has led to an increase in the quality of reporting in these journals as well as the methodological quality of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses.3,4 In October 2012, Respirology formally endorsed the PRISMA statement and changed from publishing meta-analyses as original articles to accepting meta-analyses only if they were part of a systematic review. In line with the PRISMA statement, systematic review submissions with or without a meta-analysis approach are required to include a PRISMA flowchart as part of the manuscript and must be accompanied by a completed copy of the PRISMA checklist. This checklist allows the journal’s editorial staff to quickly determine which items have been implemented in the review. © 2014 Asian Pacific Society of Respirology
META-ANALYSES OF OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES At the same time as endorsing the PRISMA guidelines, Respirology endorsed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)5 reporting guidelines, which are to be followed for metaanalyses of observational studies and must include a copy of the checklist as part of their submission. While the PRISMA guidelines focus on randomized trials and studies that evaluate health-care interventions, the MOOSE guidelines are developed for metaanalyses of non-randomized observational studies including cross-sectional studies, case–control and cohort studies.
STATISTICAL ANALYSES, METHODS AND REPORTING Since April 2013, Respirology has been encouraging authors to refer to the Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature Guidelines for advice on basic statistical reporting. These guidelines have been published by Lang and Altman6 as part of the 2013 edition of the Science Editors’ Handbook of the European Association of Science Editors and have been made freely available from Respirology’s website. Based on the concept that the statistical methods and results should be described with enough detail to allow replication of the analyses and incorporation of the results into other analyses, these guidelines outline the general principles for reporting statistical methods and statistical results, including reporting numbers and descriptive statistics, risks, rates and ratios, hypothesis tests, association analyses, regression analysis, analysis of variance or of covariance, survival analysis and Bayesian analyses. To further strengthen the statistical quality of its published papers, a group of expert biostatisticians were recruited to the Respirology editorial board in June 2013. Their task is to assist associate editors with the reviewing of selected manuscripts, including systematic reviews using a meta-analyses approach. Respirology has also recently taken the opportunity to dedicate a thematic review series to Modern statistical methods in respiratory medicine that aims to educate, update and introduce respiratory scientists to a range of methods in the modern statistical toolkit.7 Such a review series is very timely given the rapid advances in statistical methods and increasing complexity of research studies. As well as reviewing some key epidemiological concepts (e.g. representativeness, random sampling, association and Respirology (2014) 19, 1093–1094 doi: 10.1111/resp.12386
1094 causation, confounding) and basic statistics (e.g. confidence intervals, hypothesis testing, frequentist methods, P values),7 this review series covers a range of modern statistical methods including regression models,8 analysis of repeated continuous outcome measures,9 multiple imputation for dealing with missing data,10 causal diagrams for confounder selection,11 survival analysis of time to event data,12 propensity scores,13 correcting for bias caused by exposure measurement, latent class analysis, risk prediction tools and meta-analysis.
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS Respirology endorses the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement14 for reporting of randomized controlled trials and requires authors to comply with the CONSORT checklist as well as include a CONSORT flow diagram as a first figure in a manuscript. Journals that endorse and, more importantly, ensure adherence to the CONSORT guidelines show signs of improvements in the completeness of clinical trial reporting.15,16 To further improve the transparency of clinical trials results, Respirology now requires prospective registration in any of the primary registries of the World Health Organization’s International clinical trials registry platform17 or in ClinicalTrials.gov (http:// clinicaltrials.gov/). Respirology accepts retrospective registration of clinical trials commenced before 1 July 2005. Retrospective registration of clinical trials commenced after 1 July 2005 is accepted in exceptional circumstances only, and on the conditions that the registration process is completed before manuscript submission and the Methods section states the registration date and reason for late registration. Respirology’s contribution to improved clinical trial reporting is also reflected in its support of the AllTrials initiative (http://www.alltrials.net/), which calls for all past and present trials to be registered and their full methods and summary results to be reported.
REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR OTHER STUDY TYPES In addition to the guidelines discussed above, reporting guidelines for other types of studies have been developed and published. A list of these guidelines is available from the website of the EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org), an international initiative committed to improving the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting. Respirology encourages authors to consult this website and follow the appropriate guidelines. Peter Eastwood1,2 PhD, Lieve Bultynck3 PhD, Anke van Eekelen3 PhD and Christel Norman3 PhD 1 West Australian Sleep Disorders Research Institute, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, 2Centre for Sleep Science, 3Respirology Editorial Office, School of Respirology (2014) 19, 1093–1094
Editorial
Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
REFERENCES 1 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, for the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535. 2 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche P, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and metaanalyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700. 3 Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e83138. 4 Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology 2013; 269: 413–26. 5 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB, for the Metaanalysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008–12. 6 Lang TA, Altman DG. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the statistical analyses and methods in the published literature or the SAMPL guidelines. In: Smart P, Maisonneuve H, Polderman A (eds) Science Editors’ Handbook. European Association of Science Editors, Cornwall, 2013; 175–9. 7 Wolfe R, Abramson MJ. Modern statistical methods in respiratory medicine. Respirology 2014; 19: 9–13. 8 Kasza J, Wolfe R. Interpretation of commonly used statistical regression models. Respirology 2014; 19: 14–21. 9 De Livera AM, Zaloumis S, Simpson JA. Models for the analysis of repeated continuous outcome measures in clinical trials. Respirology 2014; 19: 155–61. 10 Lee KJ, Simpson JA. Introduction to multiple imputation for dealing with missing data. Respirology 2014; 19: 162–7. 11 Williamson EJ, Aitken Z, Lawrie J, Dharmage SC, Burgess JA, Forbes AB. Introduction to causal diagrams for confounder selection. Respirology 2014; 19: 303–11. 12 Kasza J, Wraith D, Lamb K, Wolfe R. Survival analysis of time-toevent data in respiratory health research studies. Respirology 2014; 19: 483–92. 13 Williamson EJ, Forbes A. Introduction to propensity scores. Respirology 2014; 19: 625–35. 14 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c332. 15 Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, Dias S, Schulz KF, Plint AC, Moher D. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012 (11): MR000030. 16 Ghimirea S, Kyunga E, Leeb H, Kim E. Oncology trial abstracts showed suboptimal improvement in reporting: a comparative before-and-after evaluation using CONSORT for Abstract guidelines. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 658–66. 17 World Health Organization. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). [Accessed 4 Aug 2014.] Available from URL: http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/primary/en/ © 2014 Asian Pacific Society of Respirology
EDITORIAL
Towards better-quality research reporting in Respirology Key words: meta-analysis, observational study, randomized controlled trial, statistics, systematic review.
Abbreviations: CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; MOOSE, Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
Over the last two years, Respirology has endorsed several guidelines with the aim of improving the reporting, transparency and consistency of the research it publishes. This editorial highlights these endorsements and the related changes in journal policy. Author guidelines published on the Respirology website clearly outline these reporting guidelines requirements. We encourage authors to take the time to ensure their manuscripts meet the basic reporting needs and thereby improve the quality of their manuscript and increase its likelihood of publication.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES In recent years, Respirology has seen an increase in the submission of systematic reviews and meta-analyses papers. These types of reviews can play an important role in educating clinicians, directing research and determining health-care policy and it is therefore imperative that the information they provide is accurate and complete. To help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of controlled trials, the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement1 was developed, consisting of a 27-item checklist and a flow diagram, published in conjunction with the PRISMA explanatory and elaboration document.2 Such endorsement by medical journals of the PRISMA statement has led to an increase in the quality of reporting in these journals as well as the methodological quality of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses.3,4 In October 2012, Respirology formally endorsed the PRISMA statement and changed from publishing meta-analyses as original articles to accepting meta-analyses only if they were part of a systematic review. In line with the PRISMA statement, systematic review submissions with or without a meta-analysis approach are required to include a PRISMA flowchart as part of the manuscript and must be accompanied by a completed copy of the PRISMA checklist. This checklist allows the journal’s editorial staff to quickly determine which items have been implemented in the review. © 2014 Asian Pacific Society of Respirology
META-ANALYSES OF OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES At the same time as endorsing the PRISMA guidelines, Respirology endorsed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)5 reporting guidelines, which are to be followed for metaanalyses of observational studies and must include a copy of the checklist as part of their submission. While the PRISMA guidelines focus on randomized trials and studies that evaluate health-care interventions, the MOOSE guidelines are developed for metaanalyses of non-randomized observational studies including cross-sectional studies, case–control and cohort studies.
STATISTICAL ANALYSES, METHODS AND REPORTING Since April 2013, Respirology has been encouraging authors to refer to the Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature Guidelines for advice on basic statistical reporting. These guidelines have been published by Lang and Altman6 as part of the 2013 edition of the Science Editors’ Handbook of the European Association of Science Editors and have been made freely available from Respirology’s website. Based on the concept that the statistical methods and results should be described with enough detail to allow replication of the analyses and incorporation of the results into other analyses, these guidelines outline the general principles for reporting statistical methods and statistical results, including reporting numbers and descriptive statistics, risks, rates and ratios, hypothesis tests, association analyses, regression analysis, analysis of variance or of covariance, survival analysis and Bayesian analyses. To further strengthen the statistical quality of its published papers, a group of expert biostatisticians were recruited to the Respirology editorial board in June 2013. Their task is to assist associate editors with the reviewing of selected manuscripts, including systematic reviews using a meta-analyses approach. Respirology has also recently taken the opportunity to dedicate a thematic review series to Modern statistical methods in respiratory medicine that aims to educate, update and introduce respiratory scientists to a range of methods in the modern statistical toolkit.7 Such a review series is very timely given the rapid advances in statistical methods and increasing complexity of research studies. As well as reviewing some key epidemiological concepts (e.g. representativeness, random sampling, association and Respirology (2014) 19, 1093–1094 doi: 10.1111/resp.12386
1094 causation, confounding) and basic statistics (e.g. confidence intervals, hypothesis testing, frequentist methods, P values),7 this review series covers a range of modern statistical methods including regression models,8 analysis of repeated continuous outcome measures,9 multiple imputation for dealing with missing data,10 causal diagrams for confounder selection,11 survival analysis of time to event data,12 propensity scores,13 correcting for bias caused by exposure measurement, latent class analysis, risk prediction tools and meta-analysis.
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS Respirology endorses the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement14 for reporting of randomized controlled trials and requires authors to comply with the CONSORT checklist as well as include a CONSORT flow diagram as a first figure in a manuscript. Journals that endorse and, more importantly, ensure adherence to the CONSORT guidelines show signs of improvements in the completeness of clinical trial reporting.15,16 To further improve the transparency of clinical trials results, Respirology now requires prospective registration in any of the primary registries of the World Health Organization’s International clinical trials registry platform17 or in ClinicalTrials.gov (http:// clinicaltrials.gov/). Respirology accepts retrospective registration of clinical trials commenced before 1 July 2005. Retrospective registration of clinical trials commenced after 1 July 2005 is accepted in exceptional circumstances only, and on the conditions that the registration process is completed before manuscript submission and the Methods section states the registration date and reason for late registration. Respirology’s contribution to improved clinical trial reporting is also reflected in its support of the AllTrials initiative (http://www.alltrials.net/), which calls for all past and present trials to be registered and their full methods and summary results to be reported.
REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR OTHER STUDY TYPES In addition to the guidelines discussed above, reporting guidelines for other types of studies have been developed and published. A list of these guidelines is available from the website of the EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org), an international initiative committed to improving the reliability and value of published health research literature by promoting transparent and accurate reporting. Respirology encourages authors to consult this website and follow the appropriate guidelines. Peter Eastwood1,2 PhD, Lieve Bultynck3 PhD, Anke van Eekelen3 PhD and Christel Norman3 PhD 1 West Australian Sleep Disorders Research Institute, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, 2Centre for Sleep Science, 3Respirology Editorial Office, School of Respirology (2014) 19, 1093–1094
Editorial
Anatomy, Physiology and Human Biology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
REFERENCES 1 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, for the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339: b2535. 2 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche P, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and metaanalyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700. 3 Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e83138. 4 Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology 2013; 269: 413–26. 5 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB, for the Metaanalysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008–12. 6 Lang TA, Altman DG. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the statistical analyses and methods in the published literature or the SAMPL guidelines. In: Smart P, Maisonneuve H, Polderman A (eds) Science Editors’ Handbook. European Association of Science Editors, Cornwall, 2013; 175–9. 7 Wolfe R, Abramson MJ. Modern statistical methods in respiratory medicine. Respirology 2014; 19: 9–13. 8 Kasza J, Wolfe R. Interpretation of commonly used statistical regression models. Respirology 2014; 19: 14–21. 9 De Livera AM, Zaloumis S, Simpson JA. Models for the analysis of repeated continuous outcome measures in clinical trials. Respirology 2014; 19: 155–61. 10 Lee KJ, Simpson JA. Introduction to multiple imputation for dealing with missing data. Respirology 2014; 19: 162–7. 11 Williamson EJ, Aitken Z, Lawrie J, Dharmage SC, Burgess JA, Forbes AB. Introduction to causal diagrams for confounder selection. Respirology 2014; 19: 303–11. 12 Kasza J, Wraith D, Lamb K, Wolfe R. Survival analysis of time-toevent data in respiratory health research studies. Respirology 2014; 19: 483–92. 13 Williamson EJ, Forbes A. Introduction to propensity scores. Respirology 2014; 19: 625–35. 14 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c332. 15 Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, Dias S, Schulz KF, Plint AC, Moher D. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012 (11): MR000030. 16 Ghimirea S, Kyunga E, Leeb H, Kim E. Oncology trial abstracts showed suboptimal improvement in reporting: a comparative before-and-after evaluation using CONSORT for Abstract guidelines. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 658–66. 17 World Health Organization. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). [Accessed 4 Aug 2014.] Available from URL: http://www.who.int/ictrp/network/primary/en/ © 2014 Asian Pacific Society of Respirology
