Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on February 27, 2009
Rheumatology 2009 48(5):461; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kep024
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
EDITORIALS |
Statistical guidelines for contributors to Rheumatology
1Arthritis Research Campaign National Primary Care Centre, Keele University, North Staffordshire and 2MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK
Correspondence to: Elaine Thomas, Arthritis Research Campaign National Primary Care Centre, Keele University, North Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, UK. E-mail: e.thomas{at}keele.ac.uk
This month Rheumatology has launched its updated statistical guidelines for authors [1]. They represent a comprehensive but easy-to-follow guide that should be viewed as a positive attempt to enhance the value of published work. The guidelines outline the approach that will be viewed by Rheumatology, and its reviewers, as constituting an appropriate standard of presentation.
Such guidelines are not new. The first attempt to give authors specific guidance regarding statistical reporting in articles for medical journals was published by Bailar and Mosteller in 1988 [2]. These statistical guidelines were an accompaniment to the 1988 revision of the more general Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals [3], a set of uniform requirements for the preparation of manuscripts. Their mission statement was as follows:
... scientific and technical writing should be comprehensible at the first reading for the average reader who is knowledgeable about the general area but not a subspecialist in the specific topic of investigation. [2]
Although 20 years old, these statistical guidelines are as relevant now as they were when originally written by Bailar and Mosteller. Some statistical advances have been made in the time since their first publication, most evident in statistical software, but the 15 statements in the publication are general enough to accommodate these expansions of statistical methodology.
More recently, guidelines for the reporting of specific study types have been developed. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement, first published in 1996 [4] revised in 2001 [5], was the first of these new study design-specific guidelines to be adopted by the main medical and health journals. Since that time there have been a number of extensions to the CONSORT statement, notably those relating to cluster trials [6], non-inferiority and equivalence trials [7], meta-analysis of trials (QUOROM [8]) and the reporting of harms in trials [9]. Guidelines have also been developed for other study types including diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD [10]), observational studies (STROBE [11]) and meta-analysis of observational studies (MOOSE [12]). Information regarding these guidelines, as well as many others, is available through the EQUATOR network (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research; http://www.equator-network.org/), a new initiative that seeks to improve the quality of scientific publications by promoting transparent and accurate reporting [13].
Results of a recent systematic review found evidence to suggest that the quality of reporting of trials has improved since the publication of the CONSORT statement [14]. Significantly better reporting was seen in journals that had adopted the CONSORT statement, compared with those that had not, and significant improvement in reporting was seen in journals after the adoption of the CONSORT statement. Despite this evidence, the use of the CONSORT statement is not universal. A survey of the ‘Instructions to authors’ for the top 167 quality medical journals carried out in 2003 reported that only 36 (22%) referred to the CONSORT statement, 27 of which gave a suitable reference [15]. A repeat survey was undertaken 4 years later and although the relative increase in those adopting the CONSORT statement was substantial at 73%, the absolute number referring to the statement was still less than half of those surveyed (62 out of 165 journals) [16].
It is hoped that with greater visibility, guidelines for reporting of health research will be more widely adopted, leading to improvements in research reporting with the ultimate goal of enabling the readers and users of such research to be reassured of its reliability and usefulness.
Disclosure statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
References
- Statistical guidelines for submission of papers—revised 2008. Rheumatology (2009) 48:462–3.
[Free Full Text] - Bailar JC, Mosteller F. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles in medical journals: amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med (1988) 108:266–73.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Intern Med (1988) 108:258–65.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. J Am Med Assoc (1996) 276:637–9.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet (2001) 357:1191–4.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT Statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. Br Med J (2004) 328:702–8.
[Free Full Text] - Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJW, for the CONSORT Group. Reporting of non-inferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. J Am Med Assoc (2006) 295:1152–60.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet (1999) 354:1896–900.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJW, Gøtzsche PC, et al, for the CONSORT Group. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med (2004) 141:781–8.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Br Med J (2003) 326:41–4.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med (2007) 147:573–7.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. J Am Med Assoc (2000) 283:2008–12.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Moher D, Simera I, Schulz KF, Hoey J, Altman DG. Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research. BMC Med (2008) 6:13.[CrossRef][Medline]
- Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust (2006) 185:263–7.[Web of Science][Medline]
- Altman DG. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors. Br Med J (2005) 330:1056–7.
[Free Full Text] - Hopewell S, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal ‘Instructions to Authors’. Trials (2008) 9:20.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||