Cited by 30Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesEvaluation and Performance Assessment

Impact of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations With Nonrandomized Designs Reporting Guideline: Ten Years On

Open access
Fuller, Thomas, Peters, Jaime, Pearson, Mark, Anderson, Rob·2014·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We assessed how the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was used by authors and journal editors in journals' instructions to authors. We also evaluated its impact on reporting completeness and study quality. METHODS: We extracted data from publications that cited TREND on how TREND was used in those reports; we also extracted information on journals' instructions to authors. We then undertook a case-control study of relevant publications to evaluate the impact of using TREND. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2013, TREND was cited 412 times, but it was only evidently applied to study reports 47 times. TREND was specifically mentioned 14 times in the sample of 61 instructions to authors. Some evidence suggested that use of TREND was associated with more comprehensive reporting and higher study quality ratings. CONCLUSIONS: TREND appeared to be underutilized by authors and journal editors despite its potential application and benefits. We found evidence that suggested that using TREND could contribute to more transparent and complete study reports. Even when authors reported using TREND, reporting completeness was still suboptimal.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2014.302195

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Reporting of natural experimental studies of all kinds may be improved by following established reporting guidelines such as STROBE or TREND.

    “Reporting of NE studies of all kinds may also be improved by following established reporting guidelines such as STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) (74) or TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs) (28).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [31]NICE. Methods for Development of NICE Public Health Guidance. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  2. [32]IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. [43]Shamseer L. Lessons Learned From the Development of a Strategy to Improve the Uptake of CONSORT. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2013. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fuller, T., Peters, J., Pearson, M., & Anderson, R.
Affiliations
University of Exeter (GB)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2014-11
Volume
104
Issue
11
Pages
e110-e117
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2010973230
Cited by
30
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3
FWCI
3.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Exeter
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
non-randomized studies, reporting completeness, reporting guidelines, author guidelines, guideline adherence, study quality, research transparency
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence, Editorial Policies

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