Cited by 151Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

Describing reporting guidelines for health research: a systematic review

Open access
Moher, David, Weeks, Laura, Ocampo, Mary, Seely, Dugald, Sampson, Margaret, Altman, Douglas G., Schulz, Kenneth F., Miller, Donald +3 more·2011·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective To describe the process of development, content, and methods of implementation of reporting guidelines for health research. Study design and setting A systematic review of publications describing health research reporting guidelines developed using consensus. Results Eighty-one reporting guidelines for health research were included in the review. The largest number of guidelines do not focus on a specific study type (n=35; 43%), whereas those that do primarily refer to reporting of randomized controlled trials (n=16; 35%). Most of the guidelines (n=76; 94%) include a checklist of recommended reporting items, with a median of 21 checklist items (range: 5-64 items). Forty-seven (58%) reporting guidelines were classified as new guidance. Explanation documents were developed for 11 (14%) reporting guidelines. Reporting-guideline developers provided little information about the guideline development process. Developers of 50 (62%) reporting guidelines encouraged endorsement, most commonly by including guidelines in journal instructions to authors (n=18; 36%). Conclusions Reporting-guideline developers need to endeavor to maximize the quality of their product. Recently developed guidance is likely to facilitate more robust guideline development. Journal editors can be more confident in endorsing reporting guidelines that have followed these approaches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.013

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence-based tools developed by experts could help streamline particular procedures that authors could follow to create reproducible and higher quality studies.

    “Evidence-based tools developed by experts could help streamline particular procedures that authors could follow to create reproducible and higher quality studies. 18 -20”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moher, D., Weeks, L., Ocampo, M., Seely, D., Sampson, M., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Miller, D., Simera, I., Grimshaw, J., & Hoey, J.
Affiliations
  • Ottawa Hospital (CA)
  • Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine (CA)
  • Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CA)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Family Health International 360 (US)
  • Queen's University (CA)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-07
Volume
64
Issue
7
Pages
718-742
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2102381912
Cited by
151
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 12
FWCI
3.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Medical Research Council (MC_qA137931)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
reporting guidelines, health research, consensus development, reporting checklist, randomized controlled trials, guideline endorsement, guideline development, research transparency
MeSH terms
Humans, Publishing, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Peer Review, Research, Consensus, Biomedical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review