| Autor: |
Anthony Chauvin, Philippe Ravaud, David Moher, David Schriger, Sally Hopewell, Daniel Shanahan, Sabina Alam, Gabriel Baron, Jean-Philippe Regnaux, Perrine Crequit, Valeria Martinez, Carolina Riveros, Laurence Le Cleach, Alessandro Recchioni, Douglas G. Altman, Isabelle Boutron |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2019 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
BMC Medicine, Vol 17, Iss 1, Pp 1-12 (2019) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
1741-7015 |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s12916-019-1436-0 |
| Popis: |
Abstract 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 |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
|
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje |
K zobrazení výsledku je třeba se přihlásit.
|
