Checklist for One Health Epidemiological Reporting of Evidence (COHERE).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Davis MF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5536878 | biostudies-other | 2017 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundHealth practice guidelines (HPGs) are important tools for the translation of evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist provides guidance on reporting health practice guidelines (HPGs). We assessed the reporting completeness and quality of a set of national (Croatian) and relevant transnational (European) HPGs.MethodsThe national sample included all HPGs published in the official journal of the Croatian Medical Association in 2014-2016. We searched PubMed to identify relevant European guidelines (n = 24). Two independent reviewers assessed the adherence with the items on the RIGHT checklist. Kappa score was used to measure the level of agreement. Frequentist and Bayes statistics Bayes factor (BF10) was used to evaluate the differences between the national and transnational HPGs.ResultsOverall, Croatian and European HPGs adhered to less than 50% of RIGHT checklist items. Croatian HPGs reported a median of 14.0 (95% CI 13.0-15.0) RIGHT reporting items, and European counterparts reported a median of 16.0 (95% CI 14.0-17.2) out of the total of 35 checklist items (Mann Whitney U test, P = 0.048; BF10 = 1.543). European HPGs were better than Croatian HPGs in reporting stakeholder involvement and values and preferences (BF10 = 80.63), as well as describing the implications of costs and resources (BF10 = 55.15). Croatian HPGs better reported HPGs specified aims (BF10 = 16.90), primary intended users (BF10 = 8.70), and sources of funding (BF10 = 122.90). Most insufficiently reported items for both HPG sets were defining the guideline questions and clear outcomes, quality assurance, management of funding and conflicts of interest, and guideline limitations.ConclusionsImportant methodological details are missing from most published HPGs at national and transnational levels. To ensure better quality and adequate use of HPGs, reporting guidelines should be endorsed and used by developers and users alike.
| S-EPMC6206632 | 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
Project description:ObjectiveClinical guidelines are designed to optimise patient care and provide efficient approaches for therapy. Epilepsy is a chronic brain disorder that continues to experience a considerable treatment gap due to non-standard recommendations. We assessed the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on epilepsy over the past 5 years to generate a reporting specification for this study.SettingSeven databases were searched in May 2018 focusing on the period from 2013 to 2018. These included Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP). Reporting quality of epilepsy guidelines was assessed by two independent authors using the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) approach. Spearman's correlation was used to assess inter-rater reliability.ParticipantsParticipants with epilepsy or seizure, not limited by age, gender, course of disease or cause of epilepsy, were included.InterventionsThere were no limitations with regard to intervention.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe outcome was the ability of the RIGHT tool to measure reporting quality.ResultsTwelve relevant guidelines were included in this study. The reporting quality was not high in any of the included guidelines. The highest reporting quality included a 'yes' proportion of 77.1%, whereas the worst included a corresponding proportion of 37.1%. Overall evaluation results showed that 16.7% of the included guidelines were of high quality, 75% were of medium quality and 8.3% were of low quality. The correlation between the two estimators was credible (ρ>0.7).ConclusionsAppraisal of these guidelines using the RIGHT tool revealed that the quality of reporting varied among guidelines. Items that exhibited low quality in most included guidelines were healthcare questions, rationale/explanation for recommendations, quality assurance, funding source(s) and role(s) of the funder, and limitations of the guideline. Thus, these aspects should receive greater attention in future guideline reporting.
| S-EPMC6924717 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines are an essential tool for translating evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist assists to guide the reporting in guidelines. We used RIGHT to assess the reporting completeness and quality of guidelines on colorectal cancer (CRC).MethodsWe searched the electronic databases Medline (via PubMed), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) from January 1st, 2018 to December 1st, 2020 for guidelines on CRC. Websites of guideline development organizations were also searched. Two investigators assessed the reporting quality of the included guidelines, and calculated the numbers of guidelines that were compliant with each RIGHT checklist item and the mean proportions of reported items for each of the seven RIGHT checklist domains.ResultsTwenty-seven colorectal guidelines were included. The proportions of reported items in each RIGHT domain were 71.0% for Basic information, 66.2% for Background, 45.9% for Evidence, 68.8% for Recommendations, 24.1% for Review and quality assurance, 33.3% for Funding and declaration and management of interests, and 40.7% for Other information.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of colorectal guidelines was moderate. A systematic use of the RIGHT checklist during the development process could improve the reporting quality of guidelines in the future.
| S-EPMC8350680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The particularly interdisciplinary nature of human microbiome research makes the organization and reporting of results spanning epidemiology, biology, bioinformatics, translational medicine and statistics a challenge. Commonly used reporting guidelines for observational or genetic epidemiology studies lack key features specific to microbiome studies. Therefore, a multidisciplinary group of microbiome epidemiology researchers adapted guidelines for observational and genetic studies to culture-independent human microbiome studies, and also developed new reporting elements for laboratory, bioinformatics and statistical analyses tailored to microbiome studies. The resulting tool, called 'Strengthening The Organization and Reporting of Microbiome Studies' (STORMS), is composed of a 17-item checklist organized into six sections that correspond to the typical sections of a scientific publication, presented as an editable table for inclusion in supplementary materials. The STORMS checklist provides guidance for concise and complete reporting of microbiome studies that will facilitate manuscript preparation, peer review, and reader comprehension of publications and comparative analysis of published results.
| S-EPMC9105086 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgical procedures are now very common, with estimates ranging from 4% of the general population having an operation per annum in economically-developing countries; this rising to 8% in economically-developed countries. Whilst these surgical procedures typically result in considerable improvements to health outcomes, it is increasingly appreciated that surgery is a high risk industry. Tools developed in the aviation industry are beginning to be used to minimise the risk of errors in surgery. One such tool is the World Health Organization's (WHO) surgery checklist. The National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) manages the largest database of patient safety incidents (PSIs) in the world, already having received over three million reports of episodes of care that could or did result in iatrogenic harm. The aim of this study was to estimate how many incidents of wrong site surgery in orthopaedics that have been reported to the NPSA could have been prevented by the WHO surgical checklist.MethodsThe National Reporting and Learning Service (NRLS) database was searched between 1st January 2008- 31st December 2008 to identify all incidents classified as wrong site surgery in orthopaedics. These incidents were broken down into the different types of wrong site surgery. A Likert-scale from 1-5 was used to assess the preventability of these cases if the checklist was used.Results133/316 (42%) incidents satisfied the inclusion criteria. A large proportion of cases, 183/316 were misclassified. Furthermore, there were fewer cases of actual harm [9% (12/133)] versus 'near-misses' [121/133 (91%)]. Subsequent analysis revealed a smaller proportion of 'near-misses' being prevented by the checklist than the proportion of incidents that resulted in actual harm; 18/121 [14.9% (95% CI 8.5-21.2%)] versus 10/12 [83.3% (95%CI 62.2-104.4%)] respectively. Summatively, the checklist could have been prevented 28/133 [21.1% (95%CI 14.1-28.0%)] patient safety incidents.DiscussionOrthopaedic surgery is a high volume specialty with major technical complexity in terms of equipment demands and staff training and familiarity. There is therefore an increased propensity for errors to occur. Wrong-site surgery still occurs in this specialty and is a potentially devastating situation for both the patient and surgeon. Despite the limitations of inclusion and reporting bias, our study highlights the need to match technical precision with patient safety. Tools such as the WHO surgical checklist can help us to achieve this.
| S-EPMC3101645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPublic or patient versions of guidelines (PVGs) are derivative documents that "translate" recommendations and their rationale from clinical guidelines for health professionals into a more easily understandable and usable format for patients and the public. PVGs from different groups and organizations vary considerably in terms of quality of their reporting. In order to address this issue, we aimed to develop a reporting checklist for developers of PVGs and other potential users.MethodsFirst, we collected a list of potential items through reviewing a sample of PVGs, existing guidance for developing and reporting PVGs or other similar evidence-based patient tools, as well as qualitative studies on original studies of patients' needs about the content and/or reporting of information in PVGs or similar evidence-based patient tools. Second, we conducted a two-round Delphi consultation to determine the level of consensus on the items to be included in the final reporting checklist. Third, we invited two external reviewers to provide comments on the checklist.ResultsWe generated the initial list of 45 reporting items based on a review of a sample of 30 PVGs, four PVG guidance documents, and 46 relevant studies. After the two-round Delphi consultation, we formed a checklist of 17 items grouped under 12 topics for reporting PVGs.ConclusionThe RIGHT-PVG reporting checklist provides an international consensus on the important criteria for reporting PVGs.
| S-EPMC7798200 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) are transforming the way health care is delivered. They are central to improving the quality of patient care and have been attributed to making health care more accessible, reliable, and safe. However, in recent years, evidence suggests that specific features and functions of EHRs can introduce new, unanticipated patient safety concerns that can be mitigated by safe configuration practices.ObjectiveThis article outlines the development of a detailed and comprehensive evidence-based checklist of safe configuration practices for use by clinical informatics professionals when configuring hospital-based EHRs.MethodsA literature review was conducted to synthesize evidence on safe configuration practices; data were analyzed to elicit themes of common EHR system capabilities. Two rounds of testing were completed with end users to inform checklist design and usability. This was followed by a four-member expert panel review, where each item was rated for clarity (clear, not clear), and importance (high, medium, low).ResultsAn expert panel consisting of three clinical informatics professionals and one health information technology expert reviewed the checklist for clarity and importance. Medium and high importance ratings were considered affirmative responses. Of the 870 items contained in the original checklist, 535 (61.4%) received 100% affirmative agreement among all four panelists. Clinical panelists had a higher affirmative agreement rate of 75.5% (656 items). Upon detailed analysis, items with 100% clinician agreement were retained in the checklist with the exception of 47 items and the addition of 33 items, resulting in a total of 642 items in the final checklist.ConclusionSafe implementation of EHRs requires consideration of both technical and sociotechnical factors through close collaboration of health information technology and clinical informatics professionals. The recommended practices described in this checklist provide systems implementation guidance that should be considered when EHRs are being configured, implemented, audited, or updated, to improve system safety and usability.
| S-EPMC6247819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales outbreak at a veterinary teaching hospital in the United States increased urgency for improved communication among diagnostic laboratories, public health authorities, veterinarians, and pet owners. Kansas State University, University of Missouri, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, and Veterinary Laboratory Investigation and Response Network created a surveillance, storage, and reporting protocol for veterinary antimicrobial-resistant bacteria; determined frequency of those bacteria in companion animals during 2018-2021; and created educational flyers for veterinarians and pet owners. We recommend a One Health strategy to create efficient surveillance programs to identify and report antimicrobial-resistant bacteria and educate veterinarians and pet owners about transmission risks.
| S-EPMC10202865 | biostudies-literature