COVID-19 vaccine guidelines was numerous in quantity but many lack transparent reporting of methodological practices.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aim
To describe the current status of COVID-19 vaccine guidelines.Study design and setting
We searched databases, Google and guideline platforms to retrieve COVID-19 vaccine guidelines published between January 1, 2020 and July 8, 2021. We worked in pairs to identify the eligible guidelines and extract data of whether the methodology, funding, and conflict of interests were assessed/reported, and so on. Results were presented descriptively.Results
A total of 106 COVID-19 vaccine guidelines were included. In the first half of 2021, on average 15 guidelines were published every month. Fifty (47.2%) guidelines addressed the vaccination of people with specific medical conditions, and 18 (17.0%) guidelines focused on adverse effects after vaccination. Only 28 (26.4%) guidelines reported the methodology they used. Four (3.8%) of guidelines assessed both the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations; 42 (39.6%) and 65 (61.3%) guidelines reported their funding sources and conflict of interest, respectively. Most guidelines were published in English (n=92, 86.8%).Conclusion
A high number of guidelines on COVID-19 vaccines have been published in the recent months, but most of them lack clear and transparent reporting of methodology, funding, and conflicts of interest. Rigorous methodological and reporting quality evaluation of these guidelines is needed.
SUBMITTER: Wang Z
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8669940 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Research needs to be reported transparently so readers can critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the design, conduct, and analysis of studies. Reporting guidelines have been developed to inform reporting for a variety of study designs. The objective of this study was to identify whether there is a need to develop a reporting guideline for survey research.We conducted a three-part project: (1) a systematic review of the literature (including "Instructions to Authors" from the top five journals of 33 medical specialties and top 15 general and internal medicine journals) to identify guidance for reporting survey research; (2) a systematic review of evidence on the quality of reporting of surveys; and (3) a review of reporting of key quality criteria for survey research in 117 recently published reports of self-administered surveys. Fewer than 7% of medical journals (n?=?165) provided guidance to authors on survey research despite a majority having published survey-based studies in recent years. We identified four published checklists for conducting or reporting survey research, none of which were validated. We identified eight previous reviews of survey reporting quality, which focused on issues of non-response and accessibility of questionnaires. Our own review of 117 published survey studies revealed that many items were poorly reported: few studies provided the survey or core questions (35%), reported the validity or reliability of the instrument (19%), defined the response rate (25%), discussed the representativeness of the sample (11%), or identified how missing data were handled (11%).There is limited guidance and no consensus regarding the optimal reporting of survey research. The majority of key reporting criteria are poorly reported in peer-reviewed survey research articles. Our findings highlight the need for clear and consistent reporting guidelines specific to survey research.
| S-EPMC3149080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical and population research on dementia and related neurologic conditions, including Alzheimer's disease, faces several unique methodological challenges. Progress to identify preventive and therapeutic strategies rests on valid and rigorous analytic approaches, but the research literature reflects little consensus on "best practices." We present findings from a large scientific working group on research methods for clinical and population studies of dementia, which identified five categories of methodological challenges as follows: (1) attrition/sample selection, including selective survival; (2) measurement, including uncertainty in diagnostic criteria, measurement error in neuropsychological assessments, and practice or retest effects; (3) specification of longitudinal models when participants are followed for months, years, or even decades; (4) time-varying measurements; and (5) high-dimensional data. We explain why each challenge is important in dementia research and how it could compromise the translation of research findings into effective prevention or care strategies. We advance a checklist of potential sources of bias that should be routinely addressed when reporting dementia research.
| S-EPMC4655106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAccurate and full reporting of evaluation of interventions in health research is needed for evidence synthesis and informed decision-making. Evidence suggests that biases and incomplete reporting affect the assessment of study validity and the ability to include this data in secondary research. The Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was developed to improve the transparency and accuracy of the reporting of behavioural and public health evaluations with non-randomised designs. Evaluations of reporting guidelines have shown that they can be effective in improving reporting completeness. Although TREND occupies a niche within reporting guidelines, and despite it being 8 years since publication, no study yet has assessed its impact on reporting completeness or investigated what factors affect its use by authors and journal editors. This protocol describes two studies that aim to redress this.Methods and analysisStudy 1 will use an observational design to examine the uptake and use of TREND by authors, and by journals in their instructions to authors. A comparison of reporting completeness and study quality of papers that do and do not use TREND to inform reporting will be made. Study 2 will use a cross-sectional survey to investigate what factors inhibit or facilitate authors' and journal editors' use of TREND. Semistructured interviews will also be conducted with a subset of authors and editors to explore findings from study 1 and the surveys in greater depth.Ethics and disseminationThese studies will generate evidence of how implementation and dissemination of the TREND guideline has affected reporting completeness in studies with experimental, non-randomised designs within behavioural and public health research. The project has received ethics approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth.
| S-EPMC3533093 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: Health technology assessment (HTA) in Poland supports reimbursement decisions via the Polish HTA Agency (AOTMiT), whose guidelines were updated in 2016. Methods: We identified key changes introduced by the update and, before guideline publication, analysed discrepancies between AOTMiT assessments and the submitting marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) to elucidate the context of the update. We compared the clarity and detail of the new guidelines versus those of the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Results: The update specified more precise requirements for items such as indirect comparison or input data for economic modelling. Agency-MAH discrepancies relating to the subjects of the HTA update were found in 14.6% of published documents. The new Polish HTA guidelines were as clear and detailed as NICE's on topics such as assessing quality of evidence and economic modelling, but were less informative when describing (for example) pairwise meta-analysis. Conclusions: The Polish HTA guidelines update demonstrates lessons learned from internal and external experiences. The new guidelines adhere more closely to UK HTA standards, being clearer and more informative. While the update is expected to reduce Agency-MAH discrepancies, there remain areas for development, such as providing templates to aid HTA submissions.
| S-EPMC5533121 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAntibiotics are among the most frequently administered drugs globally, yet they are often prescribed inappropriately. Guidelines for prescribing are developed by expert committees at international and national levels to form regional standards and by local experts to form hospital guidance documents. Our aim was to assess variability in antibiotic prescription guidelines for both regional standards and individual hospitals.MethodsA search through 3 publicly accessible databases from February to June 2018 led to a corpus of English language guidance documents from 70 hospitals in 12 countries and regional standards from 7 academic societies.ResultsGuidelines varied markedly in content and structure, reflecting a paucity of rules governing their format. We compared recommendations for 3 common bacterial infections: community-acquired pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and cellulitis. Hospital guidance documents and regional standards frequently disagreed on preferable antibiotic classes for common infections. Where agreement was observed, guidance documents appeared to inherit recommendations from their respective regional standards. Several regional prescribing patterns were identified, including a greater reliance on penicillins over cephalosporins in the United Kingdom and fluoroquinolones in the United States. Regional prescribing patterns could not be explained by antibiotic resistance or costs. Additionally, literature that cited underlying recommendations did not support the magnitude of recommendation differences observed.ConclusionsThe observed discordance among prescription recommendations highlights a lack of evidence for superior treatments, likely resulting from a preponderance of noninferiority trials comparing antibiotics. In response, we make several suggestions for developing guidelines that support best practices of antibiotic stewardship.
| S-EPMC7793464 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the adequacy of reporting and conduct of narrative synthesis of quantitative data (NS) in reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:A retrospective comparison of a 20% (n = 474/2,372) random sample of public health systematic reviews from the McMaster Health Evidence database (January 2010-October 2015) to establish the proportion of reviews using NS. From those reviews using NS, 30% (n = 75/251) were randomly selected and data were extracted for detailed assessment of: reporting NS methods, management and investigation of heterogeneity, transparency of data presentation, and assessment of robustness of the synthesis. RESULTS:Most reviews used NS (56%, n = 251/446); meta-analysis was the primary method of synthesis for 44%. In the detailed assessment of NS, 95% (n = 71/75) did not describe NS methods; 43% (n = 32) did not provide transparent links between the synthesis data and the synthesis reported in the text; of 14 reviews that identified heterogeneity in direction of effect, only one investigated the heterogeneity; and 36% (n = 27) did not reflect on limitations of the synthesis. CONCLUSION:NS methods are rarely reported in systematic reviews of public health interventions and many NS reviews lack transparency in how the data are presented and the conclusions are reached. This threatens the validity of much of the evidence synthesis used to support public health. Improved guidance on reporting and conduct of NS will contribute to improved utility of NS systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC6327109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTransparent reporting of clinical trials is essential to assess the risk of bias and translate research findings into clinical practice. While existing studies have shown that deficiencies are common, detailed empirical and field-specific data are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to examine current clinical trial reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedics.SettingExploratory meta-research study on reporting quality and transparent research practices in orthopaedics and sports medicine clinical trials.ParticipantsThe sample included clinical trials published in the top 25% of sports medicine and orthopaedics journals over 9 months.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTwo independent reviewers assessed pre-registration, open data and criteria related to scientific rigour, like randomisation, blinding, and sample size calculations, as well as the study sample, and data analysis.ResultsThe sample included 163 clinical trials from 27 journals. While the majority of trials mentioned rigour criteria, essential details were often missing. Sixty per cent (95% confidence interval (CI) 53% to 68%) of trials reported sample size calculations, but only 32% (95% CI 25% to 39%) justified the expected effect size. Few trials indicated the blinding status of all main stakeholders (4%; 95% CI 1% to 7%). Only 18% (95% CI 12% to 24%) included information on randomisation type, method and concealed allocation. Most trials reported participants' sex/gender (95%; 95% CI 92% to 98%) and information on inclusion and exclusion criteria (78%; 95% CI 72% to 84%). Only 20% (95% CI 14% to 26%) of trials were pre-registered. No trials deposited data in open repositories.ConclusionsThese results will aid the sports medicine and orthopaedics community in developing tailored interventions to improve reporting. While authors typically mention blinding, randomisation and other factors, essential details are often missing. Greater acceptance of open science practices, like pre-registration and open data, is needed. As these practices have been widely encouraged, we discuss systemic interventions that may improve clinical trial reporting.
| S-EPMC9364413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous surveys of the literature have shown that reports of statistical analyses often lack important information, causing lack of transparency and failure of reproducibility. Editors and authors agree that guidelines for reporting should be encouraged. This Review presents a set of Bayesian analysis reporting guidelines (BARG). The BARG encompass the features of previous guidelines, while including many additional details for contemporary Bayesian analyses, with explanations. An extensive example of applying the BARG is presented. The BARG should be useful to researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, educators and students. Utilization, endorsement and promotion of the BARG may improve the quality, transparency and reproducibility of Bayesian analyses.
| S-EPMC8526359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMethodological studies (ie, studies that evaluate the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of other studies in health research) address various facets of health research including, for instance, data collection techniques, differences in approaches to analyses, reporting quality, adherence to guidelines or publication bias. As a result, methodological studies can help to identify knowledge gaps in the methodology of health research and strategies for improvement in research practices. Differences in methodological study names and a lack of reporting guidance contribute to lack of comparability across studies and difficulties in identifying relevant previous methodological studies. This paper outlines the methods we will use to develop an evidence-based tool-the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist-to harmonise naming conventions and improve the reporting of methodological studies.Methods and analysisWe will search for methodological studies in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, check reference lists and contact experts in the field. We will extract and summarise data on the study names, design and reporting features of the included methodological studies. Consensus on study terms and recommended reporting items will be achieved via video conference meetings with a panel of experts including researchers who have published methodological studies.Ethics and disseminationThe consensus study has been exempt from ethics review by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. The results of the review and the reporting guideline will be disseminated in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications, in requests to journal editors (to endorse or make the guideline a requirement for authors), and on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and reporting guideline websites.RegistrationWe have registered the development of the reporting guideline with the EQUATOR Network and publicly posted this project on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io/9hgbq).
| S-EPMC7747548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundScientific knowledge is in constant development. Consequently, regular review to assure the trustworthiness of clinical guidelines is required. However, there is still a lack of preferred reporting items of the updating process in updated clinical guidelines. The present article describes the development process of the Checklist for the Reporting of Updated Guidelines (CheckUp).Methods and findingsWe developed an initial list of items based on an overview of research evidence on clinical guideline updating, the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument, and the advice of the CheckUp panel (n = 33 professionals). A multistep process was used to refine this list, including an assessment of ten existing updated clinical guidelines, interviews with key informants (response rate: 54.2%; 13/24), a three-round Delphi consensus survey with the CheckUp panel (33 participants), and an external review with clinical guideline methodologists (response rate: 90%; 53/59) and users (response rate: 55.6%; 10/18). CheckUp includes 16 items that address (1) the presentation of an updated guideline, (2) editorial independence, and (3) the methodology of the updating process. In this article, we present the methodology to develop CheckUp and include as a supplementary file an explanation and elaboration document.ConclusionsCheckUp can be used to evaluate the completeness of reporting in updated guidelines and as a tool to inform guideline developers about reporting requirements. Editors may request its completion from guideline authors when submitting updated guidelines for publication. Adherence to CheckUp will likely enhance the comprehensiveness and transparency of clinical guideline updating for the benefit of patients and the public, health care professionals, and other relevant stakeholders.
| S-EPMC5224740 | biostudies-literature