How Psychiatry Journals Support the Unbiased Translation of Clinical Research. A Cross-Sectional Study of Editorial Policies

Zur Kurzanzeige

dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.15488/285
dc.identifier.uri http://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/307
dc.contributor.author Knüppel, Hannes
dc.contributor.author Metz, Courtney
dc.contributor.author Meerpohl, Jörg J.
dc.contributor.author Strech, Daniel
dc.date.accessioned 2016-06-13T14:56:11Z
dc.date.available 2016-06-13T14:56:11Z
dc.date.issued 2013-10-16
dc.identifier.citation Knueppel, Hannes; Metz, Courtney; Meerpohl, Joerg J.; Strech, Daniel: How Psychiatry Journals Support the Unbiased Translation of Clinical Research. A Cross-Sectional Study of Editorial Policies. In: PloS ONE 8 (2013), Nr. 10, e75995. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075995
dc.description.abstract Introduction: Reporting guidelines (e. g. CONSORT) have been developed as tools to improve quality and reduce bias in reporting research findings. Trial registration has been recommended for countering selective publication. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) encourages the implementation of reporting guidelines and trial registration as uniform requirements (URM). For the last two decades, however, biased reporting and insufficient registration of clinical trials has been identified in several literature reviews and other investigations. No study has so far investigated the extent to which author instructions in psychiatry journals encourage following reporting guidelines and trial registration. Method: Psychiatry Journals were identified from the 2011 Journal Citation Report. Information given in the author instructions and during the submission procedure of all journals was assessed on whether major reporting guidelines, trial registration and the ICMJE's URM in general were mentioned and adherence recommended. Results: We included 123 psychiatry journals (English and German language) in our analysis. A minority recommend or require 1) following the URM (21%), 2) adherence to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE (23%, 7%, 4%), or 3) registration of clinical trials (34%). The subsample of the top-10 psychiatry journals (ranked by impact factor) provided much better but still improvable rates. For example, 70% of the top-10 psychiatry journals do not ask for the specific trial registration number. Discussion: Under the assumption that better reported and better registered clinical research that does not lack substantial information will improve the understanding, credibility, and unbiased translation of clinical research findings, several stakeholders including readers (physicians, patients), authors, reviewers, and editors might benefit from improved author instructions in psychiatry journals. A first step of improvement would consist in requiring adherence to the broadly accepted reporting guidelines and to trial registration. eng
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher San Francisco : Public Library Science
dc.relation.ispartofseries PLoS ONE 8 (2013), Nr. 10
dc.rights CC BY 4.0 Unported
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject randomized-trials eng
dc.subject consort statement eng
dc.subject author instructions eng
dc.subject empirical-evidence eng
dc.subject medical journals eng
dc.subject publication eng
dc.subject quality eng
dc.subject registration eng
dc.subject guidelines eng
dc.subject bias eng
dc.subject.ddc 100 | Philosophie ger
dc.title How Psychiatry Journals Support the Unbiased Translation of Clinical Research. A Cross-Sectional Study of Editorial Policies
dc.type Article
dc.type Text
dc.relation.essn 1932-6203
dc.relation.doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075995
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue 10
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume 8
dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage e75995
dc.description.version publishedVersion
tib.accessRights frei zug�nglich


Die Publikation erscheint in Sammlung(en):

Zur Kurzanzeige

 

Suche im Repositorium


Durchblättern

Mein Nutzer/innenkonto

Nutzungsstatistiken