Dataset Information

Guidelines for Reporting Articles on Psychiatry and Heart rate variability (GRAPH): recommendations to advance research communication.

ABSTRACT: The number of publications investigating heart rate variability (HRV) in psychiatry and the behavioral sciences has increased markedly in the last decade. In addition to the significant debates surrounding ideal methods to collect and interpret measures of HRV, standardized reporting of methodology in this field is lacking. Commonly cited recommendations were designed well before recent calls to improve research communication and reproducibility across disciplines. In an effort to standardize reporting, we propose the Guidelines for Reporting Articles on Psychiatry and Heart rate variability (GRAPH), a checklist with four domains: participant selection, interbeat interval collection, data preparation and HRV calculation. This paper provides an overview of these four domains and why their standardized reporting is necessary to suitably evaluate HRV research in psychiatry and related disciplines. Adherence to these communication guidelines will help expedite the translation of HRV research into a potential psychiatric biomarker by improving interpretation, reproducibility and future meta-analyses.

SUBMITTER: Quintana DS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5070064 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Guidelines for Reporting Articles on Psychiatry and Heart rate variability (GRAPH): recommendations to advance research communication.

Quintana D S DS Alvares G A GA Heathers J A J JA

Translational psychiatry 20160510

The number of publications investigating heart rate variability (HRV) in psychiatry and the behavioral sciences has increased markedly in the last decade. In addition to the significant debates surrounding ideal methods to collect and interpret measures of HRV, standardized reporting of methodology in this field is lacking. Commonly cited recommendations were designed well before recent calls to improve research communication and reproducibility across disciplines. In an effort to standardize re ...[more]

PMID: 27163204

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both.Methodology and principal findingsInterventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with "no statistical expert" and "no checklist" as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2x2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6-24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: -0.3-+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3-6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality.Conclusions and significanceThis prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines.

Dataset Information

Guidelines for Reporting Articles on Psychiatry and Heart rate variability (GRAPH): recommendations to advance research communication.

Publications

Guidelines for Reporting Articles on Psychiatry and Heart rate variability (GRAPH): recommendations to advance research communication.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets