Reporting guidelines used varying methodology to develop recommendations

Journal article

Background and Objectives
We investigated the developing methods of reporting guidelines in the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network's database.
Methods
In October 2018, we screened all records and excluded those not describing reporting guidelines from further investigation. Twelve researchers performed duplicate data extraction on bibliometrics, scope, development methods, presentation, and dissemination of all publications. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings.
Results
Of the 405 screened records, 262 described a reporting guidelines development. The number of reporting guidelines increased over the past 3 decades, from 5 in the 1990s and 63 in the 2000s to 157 in the 2010s. Development groups included 2–151 people. Literature appraisal was performed during the development of 56% of the reporting guidelines; 33% used surveys to gather external opinion on items to report; and 42% piloted or sought external feedback on their recommendations. Examples of good reporting for all reporting items were presented in 30% of the reporting guidelines. Eighteen percent of the reviewed publications included some level of spin.
Conclusion
Reporting guidelines have been developed with varying methodology. Reporting guideline developers should use existing guidance and take an evidence-based approach, rather than base their recommendations on expert opinion of limited groups of individuals.

Authors: Schlussel, MM; Sharp, MK; de Beyer, JA; Kirtley, S; Logullo, P

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Elsevier
• Journal: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
• Volume: 159
• Pages: 246-256
• Place of publication: United States
• Publication date: 2023-03-23
• Acceptance date: 2023-03-21
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.03.018
• EISSN: 1878-5921
• ISSN: 0895-4356
• Pmid: 36965598
• Language: English
• Keywords: research on research; research standards; FFR; research quality; research waste; meta-research; reporting quality; reporting standards