Radiology research aims to improve patient care, quality of life, and longevity. To achieve this goal, we must transparently disseminate research findings and provide sufficient information to understand their validity and generalizability. The use of study reporting guidelines has been found to be associated with higher quality and increased citations in radiology journals and with improved reporting of information for some study designs. A long and expanding list of developed reporting guidelines is accessible from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) website ( http://www.equator-network.org ). In this issue, Cronin and Rawson provide a comprehensive review of reporting guidelines crucially relevant to radiology researchers.
The hallmark of these guidelines is that they are developed according to systematic approaches, rather than just expert opinions. They can also be updated when new evidence or concerns arise. A good example is the development of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) . A first version was published in 1996 and then updated in 2001. Even after the 2001 revision, growing evidence highlighted new concerns regarding the reporting of randomized controlled trials, such as selective outcome reporting . Therefore, a CONSORT Group meeting was convened in January 2007. Members of the CONSORT Group aggregated and synthesized relevant evidence regarding possible new checklist items. After seven major iterations and community feedback, the Group produced a new CONSORT statement in 2010 . Still, this version will probably not be the final, immutable one.
To understand the current impact of these guidelines on radiology journals, we reviewed the “Instructions to Authors” section of the top-ranked radiology, nuclear medicine, and imaging journals with 2014 H-index above 100 by Scimago ( http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=0&category=2741&country=all&year=2014&order=h&min=0&min_type=cd ). After excluding two medical physics journals and including Academic Radiology , we analyzed 14 journals. Among them, only one journal provides information about EQUATOR. Five journals mentioned CONSORT; four mentioned STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, and National Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research; and two mentioned REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies, even though all these journals could publish studies where these guidelines might be relevant. All journals indicated that they follow the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. No journal has the complete list of reporting guidelines reviewed in Cronin and Rawson .
The quality of scientific reports rests not only with authors but also with reviewers and editors. Increasingly, journals provide access to reporting guidelines to referees. However, this is not a universal practice. Journals could include specific questions to reviewers about compliance with reporting guidelines relevant to the study. Examining systematically each and all of the items that are essential in reporting a study, the reviewers may perform a more comprehensive and informative review.
Reporting findings is often the last step in a scientific research life cycle. Thus, rigorous reporting guidelines do not necessarily make a study better after the completion of most research activities. These guidelines do give readers information to better judge the published research . However, scientific principles and sound judgment have to be applied from the very beginning and through every step in the research process. Interestingly, Radiology has placed reporting guidelines and EQUATOR information in the “Before the Study” section in their instruction to authors ( http://pubs.rsna.org/page/radiology/pia/author-toolkit#before_the_study ). Reporting guidelines can be useful resources for investigators even before beginning their study.
Although Cronin and Rawson provided a comprehensive review of many research reporting guidelines, there are still guidelines developed for radiologists that were not included in their review. When we search clinical areas of “Radiology” in the EQUATOR Network, 22 reporting guidelines are identified, most of them for subspecialty research, such as Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies of the prostate , or guidelines for reporting a functional magnetic resonance imaging study , etc. Often times, a research design may have design elements that are covered under different reporting guidelines. Because medical research evolves rapidly and medical fields are very broad, there is a need for the development of new guidelines, and this may be particularly true for radiology where new imaging methods evolve. An important resource in EQUATOR is the guidance to develop guidelines . There are opportunities for radiologists to contribute further to the development of reporting guidelines for the needs of radiology research.
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Tunis A.S., McInnes M.D.F., Hanna R., et. al.: Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement?. Radiology 2013; 269: pp. 413-426.
2. Van der Pol C.B., McInnes M.D.F., Petrcich W., et. al.: Is quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in high impact radiology journals associated with citation rates?. PLoS ONE 2015; 10: pp. e0119892.
3. Barnes C., Boutron I., Giraudeau B., et. al.: Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Med 2015; 13: pp. 221.
4. Cronin P., Rawson J.V.: Review of research reporting guidelines for radiology researchers. Acad Radiol 2016;
5. CONSORT-Statement.org : About CONSORT History. Available: http://www.consort-statement.org/about-consort/history
6. Chan A.W., Hróbjartsson A., Haahr M.T., et. al.: Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004; 291: pp. 2457-2465.
7. Al-Marzouki S., Roberts I., Evans S., et. al.: Selective reporting in clinical trials: analysis of trial protocols accepted by the Lancet. Lancet 2008; 372: pp. 201.
8. Dwan K., Altman D.G., Arnaiz J.A., et. al.: Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 2008; 3: pp. e3081.
9. Schulz K.F., Altman D.G., Moher D., et. al.: CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Ann Int Med 2010; 152: pp. 726-732.
10. The PLOS Medicine Editors : Better reporting of scientific studies: why it matters. PLoS Med 2013; 10: pp. e1001504.
11. Moore C.M., Kasivisvanathan V., Eggener S., et. al., START Consortium: Standards of reporting for MRI-targeted biopsy studies (START) of the prostate: recommendations from an International Working Group. Eur Urol 2013; 64: pp. 544-552.
12. Poldrack R.A., Fletcher P.C., Henson R.N., et. al.: Guidelines for reporting an fMRI study. Neuroimage 2008; 40: pp. 409-414.
13. Moher D., Schulz K.F., Simera I., et. al.: Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010; 7: pp. e1000217. 20169112
14. Siontis G.C., Patsopoulos N.A., Vlahos A.P., et. al.: Selection and presentation of imaging figures in the medical literature. PLoS ONE 2010; 5: pp. e10888.
15. Rifai N., Bossuyt P.M., Ioannidis J.P., et. al.: Registering diagnostic and prognostic trials of tests: is it the right thing to do?. Clin Chem 2014; 60: pp. 1146-1152.
16. Taichman D.B., Backus J., Baethge C., et. al.: Sharing clinical trial data: a proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA 2016; 315: pp. 467-468.