Statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists and scales available for reporting results in biomedical research and quality of conduct: a systematic review

Otzen, Tamara; Manterola, Carlos; Mora, Mirian; Quiroz, Guissella; Salazar, Paulina; García, Nayely

SUMMARY:

Research reporting statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists and scales can improve quality of reporting results in biomedical research. The aim of this study was to describe statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists and scales available for reporting results and quality of conduct in biomedical research. Systematic review. All types statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists and scales generated to improve the quality of the biomedical research results report were included.

Data sources:

EMBASE, HINARI, MEDLINE and Redalyc; in the libraries BIREME-BVS, SciELO and The Cochrane Library; in the meta-searchers Clinical Evidence and TRIP Database; and on the Websites of EQUATOR Network, BMC Medical Education and EUROPE PMC were used. The recovered documents were grouped as study design related to systematic reviews (SR) meta-analysis and meta-reviews, CT and RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, clinical practice guidelines; biological material, animal and preclinical studies; qualitative studies; economic evaluation and decision analysis studies; and methodological quality (MQ) scales). The 93 documents were obtained. 19 for SR (QUOROM, MOOSE, AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, PRISMA, PRISMA-Equity, PRISMA-C, PRISMA-IPD, PRISMA-NMA, PRISMA-RR, PRESS, PRISMA-Search, PRISMA-TCM, PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA-DTA, PRISMA-P, MARQ, GRAPH, ROBIS), 32 for CT and RCTs (CONSORT and it update, STRICTA, RedHot, NPT, CONSORT-PRO, CONSORT-SPI, IMPRINT, TIDieR, CT in orthodontics, "n-de-1", PAFS, KCONSORT, STORK, Protocol health data, SW-CRT, ADs, MAPGRT, PRT, TREND, GNOSIS, ISPOR RCT Report, Newcastle-Ottawa, REFLECT, Ottawa, SPIRIT, SPIRIT-C, SPAC, StaRI, TRIALS, ROBINS-I, ROB 2), 11 for observational studies (STROBE, STREGA, STROBE-nut, INSPIRE, STROME-ID, STROBE-Vet, RECORD, ORION, STNS, MInCir-ODS, GATHER), 10 for diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD and it update, ARDENT, QUADAS, QUADAS-2, QAREL and it update, GRRAS, TRIPOD, APOSTEL), 3 for clinical practice guidelines (AGREE, AGREE II, RIGHT), 10 for biological material, animal and preclinical studies (MIAME, REMARK, SQUIRE, SQUIRE 2.0, REHBaR, ARRIVE, GRIPS, CARE, AQUA, PREPARE), 5 for qualitative studies (COREQ, ENTREQ, GREET and it update, SRQR), and 3 for economic evaluations (NHS-HTA, NICE-STA, CHEERS). There are a great variety of statements, recommendations, proposals, guidelines, checklists with its extensions and scales available. These can be used to improve the quality of the report and the quality of conduct of scientific articles, by authors, reviewers and editors.

RESUMEN:

El uso de recomendaciones, propuestas, listas de verificación y escalas pueden mejorar la calidad del informe de resultados en investigación biomédica. El objetivo de este estudio fue describir las declaraciones, recomendaciones, propuestas, directrices, listas de verificación y escalas disponibles para informar resultados y calidad metodológica en investigación biomédica. Revisión sistemática. Se incluyeron todas las tipos de declaraciones, recomendaciones, propuestas, pautas, listas de verificación y escalas disponibles para informar resultados y calidad metodológica en investigación biomédica.

Fuentes de datos:

EMBASE, HINARI, MEDLINE y Redalyc; bibliotecas BIREME-BVS, SciELO y The Cochrane Library; metabuscadores Clinical Evidence y TRIP Database; sitios Web EQUATOR Network, BMC Medical Education y EUROPE PMC.

Los documentos recuperados se agruparon por tipo de diseño de estudio:

revisiones sistemáticas (RS), ensayos clínicos (EC), estudios cuasi experimentales, observacionales, de precisión diagnóstica, guías de práctica clínica (GPC); de material biológico, estudios animales y preclínicos; estudios cualitativos; estudios de evaluación económica y estudios de análisis de decisiones; y escalas de calidad metodológica (CM). se obtuvieron 93 documentos. 19 para RS (QUOROM, MOOSE, AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, PRISMA, PRISMA-Equity, PRISMA-C, PRISMA-IPD, PRISMA-NMA, PRISMA-RR, PRESS, PRISMA-Search, PRISMA-TCM, PRISMAScR, PRISMA-DTA, PRISMA-P, MARQ, GRAPH, ROBIS), 32 para EC (CONSORT y su actualización, STRICTA, RedHot, NPT, CONSORT-PRO, CONSORT-SPI, IMPRINT, TIDieR, CT en ortodoncia, "n-de-1 ", PAFS, KCONSORT, STORK, datos de salud del protocolo, SW-CRT, ADs, MAPGRT, PRT, TREND, GNOSIS, ISPOR RCT Report, Newcastle-Ottawa, REFLECT, Ottawa, SPIRIT, SPIRIT-C, SPAC, StaRI , PRUEBAS, ROBINS-I, ROB 2), 11 para estudios observacionales (STROBE, STREGA, STROBE-nut, INSPIRE, STROME-ID, STROBE-Vet, RECORD, ORION, STNS, MInCir-ODS, GATHER), 10 para estudios de precisión diagnóstica (STARD y su update, ARDENT, QUADAS, QUADAS-2, QAREL y su update, GRRAS, TRIPOD, APOSTEL), 3 para GPC (AGREE, AGREE II, RIGHT), 10 para material biológico, animal y estudios preclínicos (MIAME, REMARK, SQUIRE, SQUIRE 2.0, REHBaR, ARRIVE, GRIPS, CARE, AQUA, PREPARE), 5 para estudios cualitativos (COREQ, ENTREQ, GREET y su update, SRQR), y 3 para evaluaciones económicas (NHS-HTA, NICE-STA, CHEERS). Existe una gran variedad de instrumentos disponibles. Estos pueden ser utilizados por autores, revisores y editores; para mejorar la calidad del informe y de la CM de artículos científicos.