The surgical case report（SCARE）statement is the report checklist made by European researchers in 2016, which is specialized for surgical case report. As a reference for enhancing the research quality and transparency, the SCARE statement provides a fundamental framework for surgical case reports. The last SCARE statement was revised in 2020, and this paper interprets it to provide a practical tool for domestic researchers in surgical case report.
Objective To collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, so as to provide support for the standardized publish and spread of those guidelines. Methods Such databases as Ovid MEDLINE (1996-2010) and EMbase (till April, 2010) were searched with the terms of “guideline”, “report”, “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” to collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The irrelevant literatures (e.g. systematic review of a specific disease, clinical guideline for a certain disease, and other literatures focusing on the methodology of systematic review without mentioning reporting guideline) were excluded by reading the abstracts and titles, and then the further verification was done after the full-texts had been read. The contents about how to report a systematic review or meta-analyses were extracted from the included studies which were classified by its form of the original research (e.g. randomized controlled trial, observational study, diagnostic trial, etc.). Results Primary search ended up with 285 literatures, and 26 literatures of which were included. Among the included literatures about the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, eight were about RCTs, two about non-RCTs, two about observational study, no literature about diagnostic trial, one about animal experiment, two about report searching strategy, five about quality assessment, six about the influence on quality, and the other two about the update of guidelines. Conclusion The report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considerable in number, among which the QUOROM and its updated version PRISMA are relatively mature and widely applied. Report guidelines are beneficial to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and the report guideline focusing on specific field is needs to be formulate.
The complete, transparent, and standardized reporting of the outcome of a clinical trial is a key factor in ensuring the practicality, reproducibility, and transparency of the trial, and reducing bias in selective reporting. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement provides normative guidelines for reporting clinical trials. In December 2022, JAMA released the guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial reports (CONSORT-Outcomes) 2022 extension, aiming to explain the entries related to trial outcomes, sample size, statistical methods, and auxiliary analysis in the CONSORT 2010 statement, to further improve the standards for outcome reporting in clinical trial reports. This article combines research examples to interpret the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension, in order to provide normative references for domestic scholars to report clinical research results.
With the increasingly prominent contradiction between limited health resources and the growing population, priority setting of health research, as a response, has received widespread attention from health systems worldwide. As the results of priority setting at different levels increase year by year, some questions in the results reporting are also constantly emerging. For example, the process of producing the results is vague, too dependent on individual subjective judgment, the participation of individual stakeholder groups is limited or lack of voice, unable to identify potential conflicts of interest, and so on. It does not only seriously affect the effectiveness and rationality of the results themselves, but also create intangible obstacles to their promotion and adoption. In 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology published ‘Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)’, which makes uniform specifications for more comprehensive and consistent reporting of results in priority areas. This paper interpreted the background, formulation process and key contents of the REPRISE guideline, with an aim to promote the application of the reporting guideline in China.
To standardize and improve the reporting quality of implementation studies, BMJ published the standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI). This paper introduces the background and process of StaRI development, and interprets the core content of StaRI. It is expected that StaRI will provide support for domestic researchers to carry out implementation studies and writing implementation research reports.
Clinical prediction models typically utilize a combination of multiple variables to predict individual health outcomes. However, multiple prediction models for the same outcome often exist, making it challenging to determine the suitable model for guiding clinical practice. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have evaluated and summarized prediction models using the systematic review/meta-analysis method. However, they often report poorly on critical information. To enhance the reporting quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of prediction models, foreign scholars published the TRIPOD-SRMA reporting guideline in BMJ in March 2023. As the number of such systematic reviews/meta-analyses is increasing rapidly domestically, this paper interprets the reporting guideline with a published example. This study aims to assist domestic scholars in better understanding and applying this reporting guideline, ultimately improving the overall quality of relevant research.
The Standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015 is a revision of the STARD 2003 on the checklist and flow chart, on the basis of the new evidences of potential bias and applicability, to better guide the application of diagnostic test in clinical practices. Currently, the interpretation and application in China is still based on STARD 2003. This review will describe the application status of the original version and introduce the updated standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.
The PRISMA aims to enhance the transparency and reporting quality of systematic reviews. PRISMA 2020 is an update version of PRISMA 2009, which was published in BMJ in March, 2021. This article compared the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA 2009, interpreted PRISMA 2020 with representative examples, aiming to help Chinese scholars better understand and apply this reporting guideline, thus to improve the reporting quality of systematic reviews.