|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
abstract/reference
extract/editorial:
When we read reports of finished studies
in the medical literature, we want more than just the bottom line, the
take-home
message, and the conclusions from the authors. As
fellow researchers and as health care professionals, we also want to see
the actual study results and learn about the
methods used to generate them. Researchers need this information to
replicate
critical studies. Decision makers need details
about the methods and results for critical appraisal and to evaluate the
validity
and the applicability of the study findings.
As evident as this may seem, complete and
transparent reporting to achieve all this is still far from standard
practice. Multiple
studies have documented shortcomings in disclosing
necessary information for appreciating studies and their findings.
Authors
sometimes fail to report details on how and where
study participants were recruited (eg, how eligibility was evaluated).
They
do not always present the proper analyses and often
misinterpret the implications from their findings.
To assist in making the reporting of
studies more informative and more complete, several groups have
developed simple checklists.
The first to do so was the Consolidated Standards
of Reporting Trials group, who targeted the reporting of randomized
clinical
trials (1). Other
initiatives have followed that example. The Standards for Reporting of
Diagnostic Accuracy statement was prepared
for the reporting of test accuracy studies, that
is, studies comparing medical tests against a clinical reference
standard
for classifying patients as having the target
condition (2). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational …
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.