Assessing interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in biomedical research
- Autores: David Blanco de Tena Dávila
- Directores de la Tesis: Isabelle Boutron (dir. tes.), Erik Cobo (dir. tes.), Jamie J. Kirkham (dir. tes.)
- Lectura: En la Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) ( España ) en 2020
- Idioma: español
- Materias:
- Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
- Resumen
The lack of transparency and accuracy of research reports has been pointed out as one of the main factors causing research waste. Reporting guidelines (RGs) are sets of recommendations for authors on how to report research methods and findings in a way that no relevant information is missing. Nowadays, there exist more than 400 RGs for different study types, data, and clinical areas. However, biomedical authors’ adherence to RGs has been shown to be poor. For this reason, it is warranted to explore what strategies to improve adherence to RGs can be implemented at different points in the research process.
This thesis has three objectives: (i) to identify, classify, and analyse interventions to improve adherence to RGs that have been described in the biomedical literature, and to determine the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions, (ii) to explore biomedical editors’ perceptions of different interventions that have been or can be implemented at various points in the editorial process (iii) to evaluate in a real editorial context the impact of an intervention designed based on the studies that address objectives (i) and (ii).
For the first objective, we performed a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to RGs and identified 31 interventions (11 evaluated, 20 non-evaluated). These were grouped into five categories: training on the use of RGs; improving understanding; encouraging adherence; checking adherence and providing feedback; and involvement of experts. Research gaps identified included the evaluation of interventions (i) on training on the use of RGs and improving understanding of these, (ii) at early stages of research (education, grant writing or protocol writing), and (iii) after the final acceptance of the manuscript (copyediting or post-publication peer review). Furthermore, we showed that one of the most widespread editorial interventions, the requirement for authors to submit a completed RG checklist together with their manuscript, does not guarantee adherence.
To address the second goal, we performed a survey for biomedical journal editors with experience and interest in the topic of improving authors’ adherence to RGs. These editors generally believed that engaging trained professionals in the process of checking adherence to RGs would be the most effective, yet moderately resource intensive, editorial intervention. Also, they thought that standard peer reviewers should not be asked to check RG requirements as they generally lack time and training on the content of RGs. For other promising interventions that could potentially be implemented and evaluated in biomedical journals, we also identified their barriers and facilitators, as well as different types of incentives to encourage the use of RGs.
For our third goal, we carried out a randomised controlled trial. Our goal was to analyse, in a sample of 24 trials submitted to the medical journal BMJ Open, the effect of involving a CONSORT expert in the process of evaluating the submitted checklist and providing feedback to authors. Our results showed that the manuscripts that received this intervention were more completely reported than the ones following the standard process. Based on this, we propose that journals consider revising their peer review processes in order to find ways to make this intervention workable.
In this thesis, we have shown the effectiveness of engaging a reporting expert in the editorial process of a biomedical journal, and we have identified and explored in detail various interventions that future research may consider evaluating. Developing and implementing effective solutions to improve adherence to RGs is a key step to increase the societal impact of biomedical research and reduce research waste.
