医学研究报告指南:一项批判性评估。

International Scholarly Research Notices Pub Date : 2016-03-22 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2016/1346026
Mathilde Johansen, Simon Francis Thomsen
{"title":"医学研究报告指南:一项批判性评估。","authors":"Mathilde Johansen,&nbsp;Simon Francis Thomsen","doi":"10.1155/2016/1346026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As a response to a low quality of reporting of medical research, guidelines for several different types of study design have been developed to secure accurate reporting and transparency for reviewers and readers from the scientific community. Herein, we review and discuss the six most widely accepted and used guidelines: PRISMA, CONSORT, STROBE, MOOSE, STARD, and SPIRIT. It is concluded that the implementation of these guidelines has led to only a moderate improvement in the quality of the reporting of medical research. There is still much work to be done to achieve accurate and transparent reporting of medical research findings. </p>","PeriodicalId":14433,"journal":{"name":"International Scholarly Research Notices","volume":"2016 ","pages":"1346026"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/1346026","citationCount":"54","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Guidelines for Reporting Medical Research: A Critical Appraisal.\",\"authors\":\"Mathilde Johansen,&nbsp;Simon Francis Thomsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2016/1346026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As a response to a low quality of reporting of medical research, guidelines for several different types of study design have been developed to secure accurate reporting and transparency for reviewers and readers from the scientific community. Herein, we review and discuss the six most widely accepted and used guidelines: PRISMA, CONSORT, STROBE, MOOSE, STARD, and SPIRIT. It is concluded that the implementation of these guidelines has led to only a moderate improvement in the quality of the reporting of medical research. There is still much work to be done to achieve accurate and transparent reporting of medical research findings. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Scholarly Research Notices\",\"volume\":\"2016 \",\"pages\":\"1346026\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2016/1346026\",\"citationCount\":\"54\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Scholarly Research Notices\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1346026\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2016/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Scholarly Research Notices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/1346026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 54

摘要

作为对医学研究报告质量低的回应,已经制定了几种不同类型的研究设计指南,以确保科学社区的审稿人和读者的准确报告和透明度。在这里,我们回顾和讨论六个最广泛接受和使用的指南:PRISMA, CONSORT, STROBE, MOOSE, standard和SPIRIT。结论是,这些准则的实施只导致医学研究报告质量的适度改善。要实现准确和透明地报告医学研究结果,仍有许多工作要做。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Guidelines for Reporting Medical Research: A Critical Appraisal.

As a response to a low quality of reporting of medical research, guidelines for several different types of study design have been developed to secure accurate reporting and transparency for reviewers and readers from the scientific community. Herein, we review and discuss the six most widely accepted and used guidelines: PRISMA, CONSORT, STROBE, MOOSE, STARD, and SPIRIT. It is concluded that the implementation of these guidelines has led to only a moderate improvement in the quality of the reporting of medical research. There is still much work to be done to achieve accurate and transparent reporting of medical research findings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Retracted: Properties of PbS: Ni2+ Nanocrystals in Thin Films by Chemical Bath Deposition Retracted: Necrotizing Fasciitis: Diagnostic Challenges and Current Practices Corrigendum to “Correlation between First and Second Trimester Uterine Artery Doppler Velocimetry and Placental Bed Histopathology” Retracted: Innovative Therapies against Human Glioblastoma Multiforme Retracted: Comparison of Movement of the Upper Dentition According to Anchorage Method: Orthodontic Mini-Implant versus Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Class I Malocclusion
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1