ABSTRACT
Clinical research reports serve as the presentation of scientific research findings and directly reflect the quality of the research. This article describes the writing of different types of clinical research reports， such as observational studies and randomized controlled trial studies， with a particular focus on randomized controlled trials. Each scientific research design has its reporting focus， and the writing of scientific research papers has uniform requirements and a specific writing format. Mastering the proper format of drafting research reports is of practical value and significant importance for conduction high-quality clinical research.
ABSTRACT
RESUMEN Fundamento: La publicación científica constituye uno de los productos de una investigación, cuyos resultados pueden ser reproducidos y validados. En la revista Gaceta Médica Espirituana no existen antecedentes respecto al tema. Objetivo: Describir la correspondencia de los artículos originales con las recomendaciones para la presentación de estudios observacionales (Strobe). Metodología: Se realizó un estudio bibliométrico descriptivo donde se evaluaron, utilizando la guía Strobe, 40 artículos originales publicados del 2010 al 2012. Resultados: En 31 artículos no se explicó el fundamento científico; en 11 se expuso el escenario donde se recogieron los datos; 35 no definieron todas las variables y 12 tenían más del 50 % de sus referencias desactualizadas. Conclusiones: Un número importante de artículos no cumple con algunas de las recomendaciones del Strobe, lo que puede afectar su credibilidad y rigor científico.
ABSTRACT Background: the scientific publication is one of the products of an investigation whose results can be reproduced and validated. In the journal medical gazette from Sancti Spiritus, there is no antecedents about this subject. Objective: to describe the correspondence of the original articles with the recommendations for the presentation of observational studies (Strobe). Methodology: a descriptive bibliometric study was carried out where 40 original articles published from 2010 to 2012 were evaluated using the Strobe guidelines. Results: the scientific basis was not explained in 31 articles; in 11 the scenario where the data was collected was exposed; 35 did not define all the variables and 12 had more than 50% of their outdated references. Conclusion: A significant number of articles do not comply with some of the Strobe recommendations, which may affect its credibility and scientific strictness.
Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , Scientific Publication Indicators , Journal Article , PeriodicalABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the quality of reports on observational studies published in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing (KJWHN). METHODS: Forty-six studies using cross-sectional designs published in KJWHN from January 2011 to June 2013 were selected for analysis. Selected articles were reviewed and evaluated by three reviewers using the 22 items of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. As some of 22 items had more than one check point, further broken down, 34 checklist items were used for analysis. RESULTS: Overall, the reviewed studies provided sufficient descriptions for many STROBE items. Seven of the 34 items were found to be not applicable, and 15 of the remaining 27 items (55.5%) were evaluated as 'sufficient' in reporting. Only one study included a flow diagram illustrating participation and this lack of flow diagram was the weakest area of reporting in this review. CONCLUSION: Clearer reporting of cross-sectional studies can be attained by attention to vulnerable areas of reporting, such as including a flow diagram of participants, descriptions of sources of bias and reason for non-participation, and describing limitations of the study. Issues regarding the application of STROBE statement items should be actively discussed in order to aid future revision and clarification of items included in STROBE statement.
Subject(s)
Bias , Checklist , Cross-Sectional Studies , Epidemiology , Nursing , Women's HealthABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was developed to improve the reporting of observational studies. We aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in cohort studies and case-control studies among observational studies published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine. METHODS: We searched for cohort studies and case-control studies published as original articles in the Journal of the Korean Academy of Family Medicine during the period January 1992 through December 2009. The main outcome measures were the number and proportion of cohort studies and case-control studies that reported each of 22 checklist items of STROBE. RESULTS: We identified a total of 84 articles, of which 46 articles were cohort studies and 38 were case-control studies. Concerning methods, study designs (10%), bias (13%), study size (0%), statistical methods (12-c and 12-e items, 0%; 12-d item, cohort study, 6%) have been poorly reported. Of results, participants (5-6%), descriptive data (14-b item, 5%), and funding (1%) among other information have been poorly reported. CONCLUSION: The degree of adherence the STROBE recommendations was relatively low in cohort studies and case-control studies published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine. An effort to improve the reporting of observational studies by application and recommendation of the STROBE statement is required.
Subject(s)
Humans , Bias , Case-Control Studies , Checklist , Cohort Studies , Financial Management , Outcome Assessment, Health CareABSTRACT
Introdução e objetivo: Descrever, analisar e revisar criticamente a metodologia empregada na pesquisa epidemiológica odontológica disponível em bases de dados eletrônicas, avaliando suas estruturas segundo a iniciativa Strobe e Consort. Material e métodos: As bases de dados eletrônicas ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus e Pubmed foram selecionadas para pesquisa de literatura, reunindo publicações na área epidemiológica odontológica usando os seguintes desenhos: transversal, coorte, caso-controle, descritivo, experimental e quase-experimental . Posteriormente, cinco periódicos específicos da área odontológica foram selecionados e tiveram seus resumos analisados ââpelo critério Strobe and Consort statement. Resultados: De um universo de 10.160 artigos do Pubmed (o maior número), apenas 3.198 puderam ser classificados de acordo com seu desenho epidemiológico pela ferramenta de busca eletrônica em banco de dados. Os delineamentos mais comuns foram publicações transversais, coorte, caso-controle, descritivas, experimentais e quase-experimentais, mostrando uma tendência à ocorrência de vieses e fatores de confusão na pesquisa da literatura devido à falta de palavras na estrutura dos artigos. Embora as iniciativas Consort e Strobe tenham sido realizadas desde 2001 e 2004, respectivamente, algumas publicações não são adequadas para sua lista de verificação. Conclusão: As declarações Consort e Strobe devem ser reforçadas por periódicos odontológicos, editores e revisores para melhorar a qualidade dos estudos, tentando evitar qualquer tipo de viés ou fatores de confusão na pesquisa de literatura realizada por banco de dados eletrônico
Introduction and objective: To describe, analyze, and critically review the methodology employed in dental epidemiological research available on electronic databases, evaluating their structures according to Strobe and Consort initiative. Material and methods: ISI Web of knowledge, Scopus, and Pubmed electronic databases were selected for literature research, gathering publications in dental epidemiological area using the following designs: cross-sectional, cohort, case-control, descriptive, experimental, and quasi-experimental. Subsequently, five specific dentistry journals were selected and had their abstracts content analyzed under Strobe and Consort statement criterion. Results: From a universe of 10,160 articles from Pubmed (the greatest number), only 3,198 could be classified according to their epidemiological design by the electronic database searching tool. The most common designs were cross-sectional, cohort, case-control, descriptive, experimental and quasi-experimental publications, showing a tendency towards occurring bias and confounding factors in literature research due to missing words in papers structure. Even though Consort and Strobe initiatives have been accomplished since 2001 and 2004 respectively, some publications are not suitable for their checklist. Conclusion: Consort and Strobe statements must be strengthened by dental journals, editors and reviewers to improve the quality of the studies, attempting to avoid any sort of bias or confounding factors in the literature research performed by electronic database.
Subject(s)
PubMed , Databases, Bibliographic , Epidemiology , Library Surveys , Methodology as a Subject , Dentistry , PeriodicalABSTRACT
The quality of reporting of cohort studies published in the most prestigious scientific medical journals was investigated to indicate to what extent the items in the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist are addressed. Six top scientific medical journals with high impact factor were selected including New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, British Medical Journal, Archive of Internal Medicine, and Canadian Medical Association Journal. Ten cohort studies published in 2010 were selected randomly from each journal. The percentage of items in the STROBE checklist that were addressed in each study was investigated. The total percentage of items addressed by these studies was 69.3 (95% confidence interval: 59.6 to 79.0). We concluded that reporting of cohort studies published in the most prestigious scientific medical journals is not clear enough yet. The reporting of other types of observational studies such as case-control and cross-sectional studies particularly those being published in less prestigious journals expected to be much more imprecise.
Subject(s)
American Medical Association , Archives , Case-Control Studies , Checklist , Cohort Studies , Internal Medicine , New EnglandABSTRACT
Quality of medical research reports should be evaluated before they are applied to clinical practice. Since 1990s, several guidelines on research reports were suggested. Most recently published Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement 2010 consists of 25 checklists and flow diagram for reporting an randomized controlled trial. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology statement is a checklist of items that should be addressed in articles reporting on the observational studies in epidemiology. TREND statement for the reporting of nonrandomized designs consists of 22 checklists. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses checklist proposes to provide checklist and flow diagram for reporting of meta-analyses. The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement proposes a checklist for compensating the study errors about observational studies in epidemiology. After development of reporting guidelines, improvements in the quality of reports are continuously reported, so using guidelines in the medical research will be expected to be more generalized.