Advertisement

Topics

Web-based Tool to Improve the Assessment of Reporting (COBPeer)

2017-04-19 06:08:27 | BioPortfolio

Summary

The peer review process is a cornerstone of biomedical research publication. Despite being essential, the assessment of the completeness of the reporting and the identification of switched outcomes are not appropriately performed. Furthermore, these tasks do not suppose a high level of expertise and could be performed by junior researchers.

To assess the completeness of reporting and identified switched outcome(s), junior peer reviewers could use a simple online tool (COBPeer) based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 checklist and Elaboration and Explanation publication for reporting parallel-group RCTs. The tool would feature bullet points eliciting the meaning of each checklist item. The aim of this study that will compare the accuracy of junior peer reviewers using the tool to that of usual peer reviewers when evaluating the completeness of reporting and switched of primary outcome(s) in reports of RCTs

Description

BACKGROUND: Context Inadequate reporting is a frequent cause of waste of research. To overcome this issue, the CONSORT statement, an evidence-based, minimum set of recommendations for reporting RCTs was developed in 1996. These guidelines have since been updated in 2001 and more recently in 2010. Many journals endorse the CONSORT statement. Some journals provide recommendations to authors to follow the CONSORT guidelines and some editors enforce the use of the CONSORT guidelines by requesting authors to submit a checklist in either the submission or acceptance stage. Nevertheless, inadequate reporting remains.

HYPOTHESE: To assess the completeness of reporting, junior peer reviewers could use a simple online tool based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist and Elaboration and Explanation publication for reporting parallel-group RCT

OBJECTIVE: 1) Develop an online tool and training module dedicated to junior peer reviewers for a) assessing the completeness of reporting of key items and b) identifying switched primary outcome(s) in reports of RCTs. 2) Compare the performance of junior peer reviewers using this tool with the usual peer-review process in identifying inadequate reporting and switched primary outcome(s) in reports of RCTs.

STUDY DESIGN: randomized ratio 1:1 controlled trial with two parallel arms. Participants will be invited to participate by invitation.

ELIGIBILITY: eligible participants are juniors peer reviewers. Junior peer reviewers are defined as early stage researchers: master students, PhD students, residents involved in clinical research during their study, and clinicians who have never reviewed a manuscript

INTERVENTION: the peer-review tool will be based on 10 items of the CONSORT Statement. This tool reminds the peer reviewer of the CONSORT item which must be reported by explicating it with a series of questions. The training module will explain each item to be evaluated with examples followed by a series of exercises from published randomized trial extracts.

MANUSCRIPT SELECTION: sample of randomized controlled trials published by Annals of Emergency Medicine, British Medical Journal, British Medical Journal Open and BioMed Central series medical.

EVALUATION BY THE JUNIOR PEER REVIEWERS: the junior peer reviewer who has accepted to participate and who has passed the training with success, will have to evaluate 1 article of the selected randomized sample.

EVALUATION OF THE USUAL PEER REVIEWERS: the evaluation by the usual peer-reviewers will be obtained by an analysis of the comments of the peer-reviewers which are available on line or obtained from the publisher.

GOLD STANDARD: peers of researchers who are experts in conducting systematic reviews will evaluate each article independently from other evaluations. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus.

PRIMARY OUTCOME: the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript

SECONDARY OUTCOMES: the mean number of items accurately classified per manuscript for the 10 CONSORT items; the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio to detect the item as adequately reported and to identify switch in primary outcome(s).

SAMPLE SIZE: 120 manuscripts and 120 peer reviewers juniors.

Study Design

Conditions

Peer Review

Intervention

COBPEER

Location

Hotel Dieu, 1, place du parvis de notre dame
Paris
France
75004

Status

Enrolling by invitation

Source

Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris

Results (where available)

View Results

Links

Published on BioPortfolio: 2017-04-19T06:08:27-0400

Clinical Trials [350 Associated Clinical Trials listed on BioPortfolio]

Assessing the Effectiveness of Concurrent Peer Review for Patients With Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes

We will assess the impact of concurrent peer review vists on blood pressure, cholesterol and diabetes control. Concurrent peer review (CPR) visits refer to special offic visits by patients...

Evaluating the Impact of Assessing During Peer Review the CONSORT Checklist Submitted by Authors

Randomised trials are considered the gold standard in medical research. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement aims to improve the quality of reporting of rando...

IMproving Pain Using Peer RE-inforced Self-management Skills

The overall purpose of this pilot study is to conduct a formative evaluation of (veteran)peer delivery of a chronic pain self-management program to veterans with chronic musculoskeletal pa...

Peer to Peer Mentoring: Facilitating Individuals With Early Inflammatory Arthritis to Manage Their Arthritis: Peer Mentoring Program

Inflammatory arthritis (IA) is a major cause of long-term disability. Peer support may be a solution to the common problem of delayed treatment. Early peer support may result in improved u...

Peer to Peer Mentoring: Facilitating Individuals With Early Inflammatory Arthritis to Manage Their Arthritis - Peer Mentor Training

Inflammatory arthritis (IA) is a major cause of long-term disability. Peer support may be a solution to the common problem of delayed treatment. Early peer support may result in improved u...

PubMed Articles [11389 Associated PubMed Articles listed on BioPortfolio]

Outcomes of Peer Review for Radiotherapy Treatment Plans With Palliative Intent.

Peer review of a proposed treatment plan is increasingly recognized as an important quality activity in radiation medicine. Although peer review has been emphasized in the curative setting, applying p...

Implementation of a Peer Learning Program Replacing Score-Based Peer Review in a Multispecialty Integrated Practice.

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of a peer learning program to score-based peer review in a radiology department.

Peer assessment practices in nurse education: An integrative review.

The aim of this review was to explore how nurse education prepares students to participate in the peer review process and to deal with the benefits and challenges of giving and receiving peer feedback...

Improving Radiology Peer Learning: Comparing a Novel Electronic Peer Learning Tool and a Traditional Score-Based Peer Review System.

The purpose of this study was to compare the yields of peer learning between a radiology electronic peer learning tool (PLT) and a score-based peer review (SBPR) system.

The effect of publishing peer review reports on referee behavior in five scholarly journals.

To increase transparency in science, some scholarly journals are publishing peer review reports. But it is unclear how this practice affects the peer review process. Here, we examine the effect of pub...

Medical and Biotech [MESH] Definitions

An organized procedure carried out by a select committee of professionals in evaluating the performance of other professionals in meeting the standards of their specialty. Review by peers is used by editors in the evaluation of articles and other papers submitted for publication. Peer review is used also in the evaluation of grant applications. It is applied also in evaluating the quality of health care provided to patients.

The evaluation by experts of the quality and pertinence of research or research proposals of other experts in the same field. Peer review is used by editors in deciding which submissions warrant publication, by granting agencies to determine which proposals should be funded, and by academic institutions in tenure decisions.

Organizations representing designated geographic areas which have contracts under the PRO program to review the medical necessity, appropriateness, quality, and cost-effectiveness of care received by Medicare beneficiaries. Peer Review Improvement Act, PL 97-248, 1982.

The effect or sway that a PEER GROUP exerts on the beliefs, value systems and behavior of each member of a group. The social expectations for individuals to conform to peer group influence is known as peer pressure.

The concurrent or retrospective review by practicing physicians or other health professionals of the quality and efficiency of patient care practices or services ordered or performed by other physicians or other health professionals (From The Facts On File Dictionary of Health Care Management, 1988).

More From BioPortfolio on "Web-based Tool to Improve the Assessment of Reporting (COBPeer)"

Advertisement
Quick Search
Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Relevant Topic

Clinical Research Organization
Contract Research Organization (CRO) provide research services outsourced on a contract basis to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, healthcare and medical device industries: biopharmaceutical development biologic assay development commercial...


Searches Linking to this Trial