Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 28, 2025
Using Continuous Data Tracking Technology to Study Exercise Adherence in Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Published on: November 8, 2013
Methods and results of studies on reporting guideline adherence are poorly reported: a meta-research study
Tiffany Dal Santo1, Danielle B Rice2, Lara S N Amiri3
1Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Objectives:
We investigated recent meta-research studies on adherence to four reporting guidelines to determine the proportion that provided (1) an explanation for how adherence to guideline items was rated and (2) results from all included individual studies. We examined conclusions of each meta-research study to evaluate possible repetitive and similar findings.
Study Design And Setting:
A cross-sectional meta-research study. MEDLINE (Ovid) was searched on July 5, 2022 for studies that used any version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, or Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines or their extensions to evaluate reporting.
Results:
Of 148 included meta-research studies published between August 2020 and June 2022, 14 (10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6%-15%) provided a fully replicable explanation of how they coded the adherence ratings and 49 (33%, 95% CI 26%-41%) completely reported individual study results. Of 90 studies that classified reporting as adequate or inadequate in the study abstract, six (7%, 95% CI 3%-14%) concluded that reporting was adequate, but none of those six studies provided information on how items were coded or provided item-level results for included studies.
Conclusion:
Almost all included meta-research studies found that reporting in health research is suboptimal. However, few of these reported enough information for verification or replication.
Insights
Recent meta-research shows that few studies adequately explain how reporting guideline adherence is rated or report all individual study results. This lack of transparency hinders verification and replication in health research reporting.
Area of Science:
- Medical research methodology
- Meta-research
- Scientific reporting standards
Background:
- Adherence to reporting guidelines is crucial for the transparency and reproducibility of health research.
- Meta-research studies evaluate the quality and adherence to reporting guidelines in published literature.
- Previous assessments indicate suboptimal reporting practices in various research fields.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the proportion of meta-research studies that provide replicable explanations for coding adherence to reporting guidelines.
- To determine the extent to which meta-research studies report complete results from all included individual studies.
- To evaluate the conclusions of meta-research studies for repetitive findings regarding reporting quality.
Main Methods:
- A cross-sectional meta-research study was conducted.
- MEDLINE (Ovid) was searched for meta-research studies evaluating reporting guidelines (CONSORT, PRISMA, STARD, STROBE) published between August 2020 and June 2022.
- Included studies were analyzed for the provision of explanations for adherence ratings and complete reporting of individual study results.
Main Results:
- Out of 148 included meta-research studies, only 14% (10%) provided a fully replicable explanation of adherence coding.
- 33% (49 studies) completely reported individual study results.
- Among studies classifying reporting as adequate, none provided coding details or item-level results for verification.
Conclusions:
- While meta-research consistently finds suboptimal reporting in health research, few studies offer sufficient transparency for verification or replication.
- There is a need for improved methodological rigor and reporting standards within meta-research itself.
- Enhancing the replicability of meta-research is essential for building trust and advancing scientific knowledge.
More Related Videos
06:05The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
05:59Visualization of Intensity Levels to Reduce the Gap Between Self-Reported and Directly Measured Physical Activity
Published on: March 7, 2019
Related Concept Videos
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:56Ethics in Research
01:52Regression Toward the Mean
01:18The Scientific Method in Nursing Process
When using research findings to change practice, one must understand the process used to guide a study. The scientific method is a systematic, step-by-step process that supports the data's validity, reliability, and generalizability. As a result, findings can be...
02:07Blind Procedures
01:22Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...