Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading  Processing Request

Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
اقرأ على الانترنت اقرأ أكثر حفظ في قائمتي
  • معلومة اضافية
    • Contributors:
      Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS (U1153 / UMR_A_1125 / UMR_S_1153)); Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (USPC)-Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA); Centre d'épidémiologie Clinique [Hôtel-Dieu]; Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP) (AP-HP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Hôpital Hôtel Dieu; Emergency department; Service d'Accueil des Urgences; Hôpital Lariboisière; Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris; Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris; Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Hôpital Lariboisière; Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7); Centre for Journalology; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; School of Epidemiology and Public Health; University of Ottawa [Ottawa]-University of Ottawa [Ottawa]-School of Epidemiology and Public Health; University of Ottawa [Ottawa]-University of Ottawa [Ottawa]; Department of Emergency Medicine; School of Medicine; University of California [Los Angeles] (UCLA); University of California-University of California-University of California [Los Angeles] (UCLA); University of California-University of California; Centre for Statistics in Medicine; University of Oxford [Oxford]; Cochrane Central Executive; Taylor and Francis group; Department of Anesthesiology; Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris; Hôpital Raymond Poincaré [AP-HP]-Hôpital Raymond Poincaré [AP-HP]; Service de Dermatologie; Hopital Mondor; Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12 (UPEC UP12)-Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12 (UPEC UP12)-Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris; Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12 (UPEC UP12)-Université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne - Paris 12 (UPEC UP12); BMC Medicine; Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7 (UPD7)-Université Paris Descartes - Paris 5 (UPD5)-Université Sorbonne Paris Cité (USPC)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM); University of California (UC)-University of California (UC)-University of California [Los Angeles] (UCLA); University of California (UC)-University of California (UC)
    • بيانات النشر:
      BMC, 2019.
    • الموضوع:
      2019
    • نبذة مختصرة :
      Background The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process. Methods We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9). Results The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal’s usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88–1.84] (p Conclusions Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting. Trial registration Clinical.Trials.govNCT03119376 (Registered April, 18, 2017).
    • ISSN:
      1741-7015
    • Rights:
      OPEN
    • الرقم المعرف:
      edsair.doi.dedup.....560c0dba298f5280bb1005e42fcf1ee7