Ten simple rules for measuring the impact of workshops.

Workshops are used to explore a specific topic, to transfer knowledge, to solve identified problems, or to create something new. In funded research projects and other research endeavours, workshops are the mechanism used to gather the wider project, community, or interested people together around a particular topic. However, natural questions arise: how do we measure the impact of these workshops? Do we know whether they are meeting the goals and objectives we set for them? What indicators should we use? In response to these questions, this paper will outline rules that will improve the measurement of the impact of workshops.

Reporting guidelines for oncology research: helping to maximise the impact of your research.

Many reports of health research omit important information needed to assess their methodological robustness and clinical relevance. Without clear and complete reporting, it is not possible to identify flaws or biases, reproduce successful interventions, or use the findings in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/) promotes responsible reporting and the use of reporting guidelines to improve the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of health research. EQUATOR supports researchers by providing online resources and training. EQUATOR Oncology, a project funded by Cancer Research UK, aims to support cancer researchers reporting their research through the provision of online resources. In this article, our objective is to highlight reporting issues related to oncology research publications and to introduce reporting guidelines that are designed to aid high-quality reporting. We describe generic reporting guidelines for the main study types, and explain how these guidelines should and should not be used. We also describe 37 oncology-specific reporting guidelines, covering different clinical areas (e.g., haematology or urology) and sections of the report (e.g., methods or study characteristics); most of these are little-used. We also provide some background information on EQUATOR Oncology, which focuses on addressing the reporting needs of the oncology research community.

Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cancer prognostic biomarkers have shown disappointing clinical applicability. The objective of this study was to classify and estimate how study results are overinterpreted and misreported in prognostic factor studies in oncology. METHODS: This systematic review focused on 17 oncology journals with an impact factor above 7. PubMed was searched for primary clinical studies published in 2015, evaluating prognostic factors. We developed a classification system, focusing on three domains: misleading reporting (selective, incomplete reporting, misreporting), misleading interpretation (unreliable statistical analysis, spin) and misleading extrapolation of the results (claiming irrelevant clinical applicability, ignoring uncertainty). RESULTS: Our search identified 10,844 articles. The 98 studies included investigated a median of two prognostic factors (Q1-Q3, 1-7). The prognostic factors' effects were selectively and incompletely reported in 35/98 and 24/98 full texts, respectively. Twenty-nine articles used linguistic spin in the form of strong statements. Linguistic spin rejecting non-significant results was found in 34 full-text results and 15 abstract results sections. One in five articles had discussion and/or abstract conclusions that were inconsistent with the study findings. Sixteen reports had discrepancies between their full-text and abstract conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence of frequent overinterpretation of findings of prognostic factor assessment in high-impact medical oncology journals.

Interventions to reduce waiting times for elective procedures.

BACKGROUND: Long waiting times for elective healthcare procedures may cause distress among patients, may have adverse health consequences and may be perceived as inappropriate delivery and planning of health care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing waiting times for elective care, both diagnostic and therapeutic. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1946-), EMBASE (1947-), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ABI Inform, the Canadian Research Index, the Science, Social Sciences and Humanities Citation Indexes, a series of databases via Proquest: Dissertations & Theses (including UK & Ireland), EconLit, PAIS (Public Affairs International), Political Science Collection, Nursing Collection, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. We sought related reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE). We searched trial registries, as well as grey literature sites and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) designs that met EPOC minimum criteria and evaluated the effectiveness of any intervention aimed at reducing waiting times for any type of elective procedure. We considered studies reporting one or more of the following outcomes: number or proportion of participants whose waiting times were above or below a specific time threshold, or participants' mean or median waiting times. Comparators could include any type of active intervention or standard practice. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from, and assessed risk of bias of, each included study, using a standardised form and the EPOC 'Risk of bias' tool. They classified interventions as follows: interventions aimed at (1) rationing and/or prioritising demand, (2) expanding capacity, or (3) restructuring the intake assessment/referral process.For RCTs when available, we reported preintervention and postintervention values of outcome for intervention and control groups, and we calculated the absolute change from baseline or the effect size with 95% confidence interval (CI). We reanalysed ITS studies that had been inappropriately analysed using segmented time-series regression, and obtained estimates for regression coefficients corresponding to two standardised effect sizes: change in level and change in slope. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies met our inclusion criteria: three RCTs and five ITS studies involving a total of 135 general practices/primary care clinics, seven hospitals and one outpatient clinic. The studies were heterogeneous in terms of types of interventions, elective procedures and clinical conditions; this made meta-analysis unfeasible.One ITS study evaluating prioritisation of demand through a system for streamlining elective surgery services reduced the number of semi-urgent participants waiting longer than the recommended time (< 90 days) by 28 participants/mo, while no effects were found for urgent (< 30 days) versus non-urgent participants (< 365 days).Interventions aimed at restructuring the intake assessment/referral process were evaluated in seven studies. Four studies (two RCTs and two ITSs) evaluated open access, or direct booking/referral: One RCT, which showed that open access to laparoscopic sterilisation reduced waiting times, had very high attrition (87%); the other RCT showed that open access to investigative services reduced waiting times (30%) for participants with lower urinary tract syndrome (LUTS) but had no effect on waiting times for participants with microscopic haematuria. In one ITS study, same-day scheduling for paediatric health clinic appointments reduced waiting times (direct reduction of 25.2 days, and thereafter a decrease of 3.03 days per month), while another ITS study showed no effect of a direct booking system on proportions of participants receiving a colposcopy appointment within the recommended time. One RCT and one ITS showed no effect of distant consultancy (instant photography for dermatological conditions and telemedicine for ear nose throat (ENT) conditions) on waiting times; another ITS study showed no effect of a pooled waiting list on the number of participants waiting for uncomplicated spinal surgery.Overall quality of the evidence for all outcomes, assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) tool, ranged from low to very low.We found no studies evaluating interventions to increase capacity or to ration demand. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As only a handful of low-quality studies are presently available, we cannot draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of the evaluated interventions in reducing waiting times. However, interventions involving the provision of more accessible services (open access or direct booking/referral) show some promise.

Get the content right: following reporting guidelines will make your research paper more complete, transparent and usable.

Substantial evidence demonstrates widespread shortcomings in the reporting of health research publications. Reporting guidelines represent an effective tool to help improve the completeness and transparency of published papers that are much needed for their future use. Examples of key reporting guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, COREQ, ENTREQ, PRISMA, STARD, and SQUIRE) are introduced here together with other resources supporting the writing of high quality research publications that are provided by the EQUATOR Network (www.equator-network.org).

Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines.

David Moher and colleagues from the EQUATOR network offer guidance and recommended steps for developing health research reporting guidelines.

Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network.

Although current electronic methods of scientific publishing offer increased opportunities for publishing all research studies and describing them in sufficient detail, health research literature still suffers from many shortcomings. These shortcomings seriously undermine the value and utility of the literature and waste scarce resources invested in the research. In recent years there have been several positive steps aimed at improving this situation, such as a strengthening of journals' policies on research publication and the wide requirement to register clinical trials.The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network is an international initiative set up to advance high quality reporting of health research studies; it promotes good reporting practices including the wider implementation of reporting guidelines. EQUATOR provides free online resources http://www.equator-network.org supported by education and training activities and assists in the development of robust reporting guidelines. This paper outlines EQUATOR's goals and activities and offers suggestions for organizations and individuals involved in health research on how to strengthen research reporting.

Responsible reporting of health research studies: transparent, complete, accurate and timely.

Complete, accurate and transparent reporting is an integral part of responsible research conduct. However, many studies have shown that health research publications frequently lack crucial information. Reporting guidelines like the CONSORT Statement help to improve the quality of research reports. Unfortunately, their uptake by journals and authors is still limited and does not maximize their potential. The EQUATOR Network, a new international initiative, leads the effort to promote transparent reporting of research and the use of reporting guidelines. It provides online resources and training relating to the reporting of health research, and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of reporting guidelines (www.equator-network.org). Poor reporting practices can be decreased only through close collaboration of all parties involved in research and its publication; EQUATOR can facilitate the process.

Tamoxifen for relapse of ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen is an important drug for treating breast cancer. Ovarian cancer cells are known to possess receptors for hormones and may thus also respond to tamoxifen. OBJECTIVES: Tamoxifen is used to treat breast cancer in women whose tumours have oestrogen receptors. Since ovarian cancers also commonly have oestrogen receptors, it has been suggested that tamoxifen may be of some benefit. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of tamoxifen in women with relapsed ovarian cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Issue 1, 2009. Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Trials Register, MEDLINE from 2002 to April 2009, EMBASE from 2002 to April 2009. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of review articles and contacted experts in the field, as well as drugs companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised studies of tamoxifen in women with ovarian cancer who have not responded to conventional chemotherapy. Only trials involving 10 or more patients were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria. No trials were found and therefore no data were analysed. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1392 unique references of which 1360 were excluded on the basis of title and abstract. The remaining 32 articles were retrieved in full, but none satisfied the inclusion criteria. Only observational data from single arm studies of women treated with tamoxifen were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are unable to make any evidence-based recommendations as we found no comparative studies assessing the effectiveness of tamoxifen in women with recurrent ovarian cancer. There is limited evidence on anti-tumour activity from phase 2 studies, but these contain no data on the effect of tamoxifen on symptom control, QOL or the prolongation of life.

Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research.

Inadequate reporting is problematic for several reasons. If authors do not provide sufficient details concerning the conduct of their study, readers are left with an incomplete picture of what was done. As such, they are not able to judge the merits of the results and interpret them. The EQUATOR Network is a new initiative aimed at improving the clarity and transparency of reporting health research.

A systematic review of population and community dietary interventions to prevent cancer.

Diet is an important factor in the causation of cancer. Previous systematic reviews of one-to-one interventions to encourage dietary change have found that such interventions can achieve modest improvements in diet. However, such interventions are resource intensive and unlikely to be good value for money at a population level. Interventions that address groups, communities or whole populations may be less resource intensive and effect change in a wider population. We report a systematic review of such interventions. We set wide inclusion criteria, including before-and-after studies and studies with a non-randomized comparison group as well as randomized trials. We found eighteen studies based in the community, seventeen based on worksites, five based in churches and one based in a supermarket. Interventions which targeted fruit and vegetable intake were most likely to be successful, particularly in worksites and churches. There was also evidence of small positive effects on reducing fat intake in worksites and churches. Overall the community-based interventions showed little effect. The studies included in the present review were generally poorly reported. Dietary changes are reported in the relatively short-term studies reviewed here but may not be sustained in the long term. The effects that we have identified are small but the reach is potentially very wide, in some cases as wide as a whole country. The cost effectiveness of such strategies remains to be evaluated.

A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the quality of included studies is an essential component of any systematic review. A formal quality assessment is facilitated by using a structured tool. There are currently no guidelines available for researchers wanting to develop a new quality assessment tool. METHODS: This paper provides a framework for developing quality assessment tools based on our experiences of developing a variety of quality assessment tools for studies of differing designs over the last 14 years. We have also drawn on experience from the work of the EQUATOR Network in producing guidance for developing reporting guidelines. RESULTS: We do not recommend a single 'best' approach. Instead, we provide a general framework with suggestions as to how the different stages can be approached. Our proposed framework is based around three key stages: initial steps, tool development and dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that anyone who would like to develop a new quality assessment tool follow the stages outlined in this paper. We hope that our proposed framework will increase the number of tools developed using robust methods.

Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is inconsistently reported in health and social care research. Improving the quality of how PPI is reported is critical in developing a higher quality evidence base to gain a better insight into the methods and impact of PPI. This paper describes the methods used to develop and gain consensus on guidelines for reporting PPI in research studies (updated version of the Guidance for Reporting Patient and Public Involvement (GRIPP2)). METHODS: There were three key stages in the development of GRIPP2: identification of key items for the guideline from systematic review evidence of the impact of PPI on health research and health services, a three-phase online Delphi survey with a diverse sample of experts in PPI to gain consensus on included items and a face-to-face consensus meeting to finalise and reach definitive agreement on GRIPP2. Challenges and lessons learnt during the development of the reporting guidelines are reported. DISCUSSION: The process of reaching consensus is vital within the development of guidelines and policy directions, although debate around how best to reach consensus is still needed. This paper discusses the critical stages of consensus development as applied to the development of consensus for GRIPP2 and discusses the benefits and challenges of consensus development.

A new forum for research on research integrity and peer review.

This editorial explains why we are launching Research Integrity and Peer Review, a new open-access journal that will provide a home to research on ethics, reporting, and evaluation of research. We discuss how the idea to launch this journal came about and identify the gaps in knowledge where we would like to encourage more research and interdisciplinary discussion. We are particularly keen to receive submissions presenting actual research that will increase our understanding and suggest potential solutions to issues related to peer review, study reporting, and research and publication ethics.

Do declarative titles affect readers' perceptions of research findings? A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Many journals prohibit the use of declarative titles that state study findings, yet a few journals encourage or even require them. We compared the effects of a declarative versus a descriptive title on readers' perceptions about the strength of evidence in a research abstract describing a randomized trial. METHODS: Study participants (medical or dental students or doctors attending lectures) read two abstracts describing studies of a fictitious treatment (Anticox) for a fictitious condition (Green's syndrome). The first abstract (A1) described an uncontrolled, 10-patient, case series, and the second (A2) described a randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 48 patients. All participants rated identical A1 abstracts (with a descriptive title) to provide baseline ratings and thus reduce the effects of inter-individual variability. Participants were randomized so that half rated a version of A2 with a descriptive title and half with a declarative title. For each abstract, participants indicated their agreement with the statement "Anticox is an effective treatment for pain in Green's syndrome" using 100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS) ranging from "disagree completely" to "agree completely." VAS scores were measured by an investigator who was unaware of group allocation. RESULTS: One hundred forty-four participants from four centres completed the study. There was no significant difference between the declarative and the descriptive title groups' confidence in the study conclusions as expressed on VAS scales-in fact, the mean difference between A1 and A2 was smaller for the declarative title group than that for the descriptive title group (32.6 mm, SD 27.4 vs. 39.8 mm, SD 22.6, respectively, p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that the use of a declarative title affected readers' perceptions about study conclusions. This suggests that editors' fears that declarative titles might unduly influence readers' judgements about study conclusions may be unfounded, at least in relation to reports of randomized trials. However, our study design had several limitations, and our findings may not be generalizable to other situations.

Compliance with clinical trial registration and reporting guidelines by Latin American and Caribbean journals.

The objective of this study was to determine to what extent Latin American and Caribbean biomedical journals have endorsed and complied with clinical trial registration and reporting guidelines. A search of randomized clinical trials was carried out using the LILACS database. The randomized clinical trials identified through the search were assessed to determine whether trial registration and CONSORT guidance was mentioned. Information regarding endorsement of the ICMJE, trial registration and other reporting guidelines was extracted from the online instructions for authors of the journals included in the study. The search identified 477 references. We assessed a random sample of 240 titles of which 101 were randomized clinical trials published in 56 journals. Trial registration was reported in 19.8% of the randomized clinical trials, 6.9% were prospectively registered and 3% mentioned CONSORT. The ICMJE was mentioned by 68% of the journals and 36% of journals required trial registration. Fewer journals provided advice on reporting guidelines: CONSORT (13%), PRISMA (1.8%), STROBE (1.8%), and the EQUATOR network (3.6%). Wider endorsement of trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines is necessary in clinical trials conducted in Latin America and the Caribbean.