在缺乏数据进行 Meta 分析的系统评价中，通常使用替代合成方法，但这些方法却很少被报道，而模糊的方法阐述可能会导致人们质疑系统评价结果的真实性。无 Meta 分析数据合成（SWiM）报告规范是用于指导采用了替代合成方法评估干预措施效应的系统评价进行清晰报告的规范。本文介绍了 SWiM 规范的研制过程及 9 个 SWiM 报告条目及其相应的解释与示例。
ObjectiveTo investigate the awareness situation on the ARRIVE guideline and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) of animal experiments in researchers in animal experiments field in Lanzhou city, in order to improve the promotion of the two reporting guidelines in China. MethodsA self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate the clinical graduate students and teachers in medical college in Lanzhou city. The investigation contents mainly included the basic information of the respondents, the awareness situation on the ARRIVE guideline, GSPC and other medical reporting guidelines. SPSS 21.0 software was used for data analysis. ResultsA total of 329 questionnaires (40 were from teachers and 289 were from graduate students) were issued, of which, 287 questionnaires were effective. The results showed that the awareness rate on the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC in clinical graduate students and teachers in medical college in Lanzhou city were 11.8% and 12.5%, respectively, and there was no significant difference between students and teachers in awareness rate (P=0.903). The survey approaches, the age, education, job, and the organization of the respondents were all not the influence factors of awareness rate (P>0.05). The respondents knew about the reporting guidelines mainly through the website (33.4%), related studies (21.2%) and academic reports (17.4%). ConclusionThe awareness rate on the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC is relative low in researchers in animal experiments field in Lanzhou city, and it needed to take purposeful measures to promote and popularize them.
ObjectiveTo assess the endorsement of the ARRIVE guideline and the Gold Standard Publication Checklist (GSPC) by Chinese journals in animal experiments field and its incorporation into their editorial processes. MethodsChinese journals indexed by SCI, MEDLINE, CSCD or CSTPCD were included. The latest'instruction for authors' (IFA) of each included journals was downloaded and any text mentioning the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC was extracted. Subsequently, a self-designed questionnaire was used to investigate the editor of each included journals. The investigation contents mainly included the basic information of the respondents, the awareness situation on the ARRIVE guideline, GSPC and their incorporation into editorial and peer review processes. Results240 journals in animal experiments field from China were examined. A total of 240 questionnaires were issued, of which, 198 questionnaires were effective (response rate 82.5%). The results showed that all IFAs didn't mention the ARRIVE guideline or GSPC and the awareness rate on the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC in editors of Chinese journals was only 13.1%. Only 10.1% of the editors reported that they required authors to comply with the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC. And editors reported that they incorporated the two guidelines into their peer review (7.1%) and editorial processes (8.1%). ConclusionAt present, all Chinese journals'IFAs didn't mention the ARRIVE guideline or GSPC. The majority of editors surveyed are not familiar with the content of the ARRIVE guideline and GSPC. And it needs to take purposeful measures to promote and popularize them in order to improve the quality of animal experiment reports.
As the volume of medical research using large language models (LLM) surges, the need for standardized and transparent reporting standards becomes increasingly critical. In January 2025, Nature Medicine published statement titled by TRIPOD-LLM reporting guideline for studies using large language models. This represents the first comprehensive reporting framework specifically tailored for studies that develop prediction models based on LLM. It comprises a checklist with 19 main items (encompassing 50 sub-items), a flowchart, and an abstract checklist (containing 12 items). This article provides an interpretation of TRIPOD-LLM’s development methods, primary content, scope, and the specific details of its items. The goal is to help researchers, clinicians, editors, and healthcare decision-makers to deeply understand and correctly apply TRIPOD-LLM, thereby improving the quality and transparency of LLM medical research reporting and promoting the standardized and ethical integration of LLM into healthcare.
ObjectiveTo select the key questions of the reporting quality of acupuncture therapy network meta-analysis. MethodsA question pool about reporting quality of acupuncture therapy network meta-analysis was conducted by preliminary literature research and qualitative systematic review. A correspondence questionnaire was designed and the selection of key questions was carried out through two rounds of expert consultation using the Delphi method. ResultsA total of 21 key questions were selected for the network meta-analysis report standard of acupuncture, including whether to report details of acupuncture interventions (e.g., needle type, acupoints used, number of needles inserted, depth of needle insertion, retention time, needling techniques, and treatment duration), diagnostic criteria for diseases or traditional Chinese medicine syndromes, and qualifications of acupuncture practitioners. Of these, the only three key questions answered by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were summary, protocol and registration, and source of funding, while the remaining 19 were specific to acupuncture-related report standards. ConclusionThe conducted key question on reporting guideline of acupuncture network meta-analysis can improve the standardization and rigor of relevant research and better utilize its academic and clinical value.
This study aimed to provide suggestions for future researchers to select and optimize sham acupuncture reporting guidelines in acupuncture clinical trials. Through qualitative analysis, we compared the basic information and concrete contents between Acupuncture Controls gUideline for Reporting humAn Trials and Experiments (ACURATE) and SHam Acupuncture REporting guidelines in clinical trials (SHARE) developed by researchers from China and Korea. In addition, the similarities and differences of the two guidelines were illustrated through a specific case. We found that the two guidelines had their own characteristics and emphasis in content, but both emphasized the reports of detailed information and background factors of sham acupuncture compared with the previous STRICTA and TIDieR-Placebo checklist. In terms of item division, we found that the ACURATE split the same topic into several items to emphasize the importance of each item content. SHARE emphasized the comprehensive reports of sham acupuncture by combining several items into a single item. In terms of item content, ACURATE also focused on combination therapy, the information regarding sham acupuncture provided to participants, and any differences in treatment settings between versus/sham acupuncture, which had some referential meaning for setting sham acupuncture control. SHARE also focused on sham acupuncture detailed information, practitioner, and modifications, etc. Case analysis showed that there were some "not reported" or "partially reported" items in both guidelines. Therefore, it is suggested that researchers can use the above two guidelines to complement and learn from each other to report sham acupuncture. In addition, it is necessary for researchers to verify the operability and practicability of the above two guidelines, and provide suggestions for optimizing and updating them in the future.
To solve the problems such as the incomplete and non-standard reporting outcomes in clinical trials, international methodologists have simultaneously launched guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports in 2022 on the basis of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement 2010. The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension and CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension recommend outcome-specific reporting items should be included prospectively in trial protocols and reports, regardless of trial design or population. This paper introduces and interprets the two guidelines for reporting outcomes, and discusses their significance and enlightenment to the research in the field of traditional Chinese medicine. For example, using the outcome reporting guidelines will help clinical researchers comprehensively consider issues related to outcomes when reporting protocols or results, which may improve the quality of research design and reporting. For core outcome set, the five core elements of outcomes may help researchers extracting and analyzing outcomes, which will standardize research; the explanation of medical terminology in the outcome reporting guidelines will contribute to the improvement of methodology in the field of traditional Chinese medicine.
Based on the PRISMA 2009 checklist, the study analyzed current status and reporting quality of systematic reviews of animal experiments, and consulted experts in relevant fields to form an initial entry pool of reporting checklists for systematic reviews of animal experiments in traditional Chinese medicine (PRISMA-ATCM). Then, the initial entry pool was improved through 2 rounds of Delphi expert consultation. Finally, the items were revised through the consensus meeting, and the final PRISMA-ATCM was formed. Of the 27 items on the PRISMA checklist, 12 were revised and expanded, specifically relating to TCM interventions and animal characteristics. The publication of the PRISMA-ATCM will improve the transparency and standardization of systematic reviews of animal experiments in Chinese medicine.
The standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy (STARD) was developed for guiding the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Its newest version was published in 2015. The study mainly introduced the checklist, terminology, and diagram of the STARD 2015. It is hoped that domestic researchers could use the STARD 2015 to guide the implementation and reporting of their diagnostic accuracy studies, so as to improve the reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies.
ObjectiveTo develop reporting guideline for dose-response meta-analysis (DMA), so as to help Chinese authors to understand DMA better and to promote the reporting quality of DMA conducted by them. MethodPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, and WanFang Data were searched from Jan 1st 2011 to Dec 30th 2015 to collect DMA papers published by Chinese authors. The number of these publications by years, whether and what kind of reporting guideline was used, and whether the DMA method claimed in these publications was correct were analysed. Then we drafted a checklist of items for reporting DMA, and organized a discussion meeting with experts from the fields of DMA, evidence-based medicine, clinical epidemiology, and clinicians to collect suggestions for revising the draft reporting guideline for DMA. ResultsOnly 33.73% of the publications clarified it is a DMA on the title and 48.02% of them reported risk of bias. Almost 38.49% of the publications didn't use any reporting guidelines. Fourteen of them claimed an incorrect use of methodology. We primarily took account for 47 potential items related to DMA based on our literature analysis results and existing reporting guidelines for other types of meta-analyses. After the discussion meeting with 6 experts, we revised the items, and finally the G-Dose checklist with 43 items for reporting DMA was developed. ConclusionThere is a lack of attention on reporting guidelines in Chinese authors and evidence suggests these authors may be at risk of incomplete understanding on reporting guidelines. It is strongly recommended to use reporting guidelines for DMA and other types of meta-analyses in Chinese authors.