Despite the effort of researchers, editors and peer reviewers, the quality of health-research reporting in journal articles is unsatisfactory.1-6 Guidelines that specify a minimum set of items for reporting can improve the accuracy and transparency of publications, thus facilitating easier and more reliable appraisal of quality and relevance. During the past 10 years several internationally respected guidelines for the reporting of health research have been developed.7-10 However, those guidelines are still not widely supported by medical journals11, 12 or adhered to by researchers, and thus their potential impact is lessened.
To remedy this situation the UK National Knowledge Service provided funding to start the EQUATOR project (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research). This initiative seeks to improve the reliability of medical publications by promoting transparent and accurate reporting of health research. This movement grew out of the work of CONSORT9 and other groups.
EQUATOR is an umbrella for all areas of health-research reporting. The network aims to become a global centre that provides resources and training, and which assists in the development, dissemination, and implementation of robust reporting guidelines. EQUATOR's strategic plan reflects the needs of its major stakeholders: developers of reporting guidelines, researchers, journal editors, peer-reviewers, and research-funding bodies.
One of the first activities was to identify existing reporting guidelines to see how they were developed. The development methods of most guidelines were broadly similar, but with wide variation in important details. Development usually took a long time and only half the groups had strategies for dissemination and implementation of their guidelines. The difficulty of securing sufficient funding to develop, assess, and disseminate guidelines was widely acknowledged as a major problem.
The initial survey and discussions with the main stakeholders helped us to prioritise future activities. First, we developed an internet-based resource centre, which can be freely accessed on our website.13 At present, it provides a collection of available reporting guidelines. In the future, the website will also host other resources for authors of research articles, editors, peer-reviewers, and developers of guidelines, including a comprehensive digital library for health-research reporting, guidance for the development of robust reporting guidelines, tools to facilitate their use, and educational materials.
The availability of good reporting guidelines is not sufficient for the improvement of the quality of reporting. Our second priority will be active promotion of such guidelines and their use, by developing and running training for editors, peer-reviewers, and authors. The courses will concentrate on the important factors of research reporting and the efficient use of reporting guidelines.
Poor reporting reflects a collective failure of those involved. Collaboration with and the support of influential medical journals are vital for the success of this project. Benefits will be equally split between both communities—users will benefit from improved reliability of scientific information and journals will benefit from increased loyalty of their readers attracted by improved accuracy and reliability of reports. The EQUATOR network will regularly monitor how journals implement reporting guidelines. We will annually audit the quality of reporting across the health-research literature and hope to document gradual improvements.
Sufficient funding is a necessary requirement for the development and implementation of robust reporting guidelines and widespread promotion of good reporting of research. In view of how much money funding agencies spend on health research, their lack of interest in ensuring that this research is reported accurately is deeply disappointing. Good reporting is not an optional extra; it is an essential component of research. Funding bodies should recognise this and support initiatives such as EQUATOR that aim to improve the current situation.
The EQUATOR Network will hold its official launch meeting on June 26, 2008, in London, UK. The meeting will focus on better understanding of problems associated with health-research reporting and use of reporting guidelines, and on finding potential solutions to improve the health-research literature.
Biographies
Douglas Altman is professor of Statistics in Medicine at the Institute of Health Sciences in the University of Oxford in Oxford, UK.
Iveta Simera is senior project manager of the EQUATOR Network at the Centre for Statistics in Medicine in the University of Oxford in Oxford, UK.
John Hoey is professor of medicine at Queen's University is Kingston, Ontario.
David Moher is at the Chalmers Research Group at the University of Ottawa in Ottawa, Ontario.
Ken Schulz is vice president of Quantitative Sciences at Family Health International in Durham, NC.
Footnotes
Competing interests: We are all involved in health-care initiatives and research that should benefit from wide uptake of reporting guidelines.
This article was first published in The Lancet on 5 April 2008 and is reproduced here with permission.
References
- 1.Chan An-Wen, Altman Douglas G. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005;365(9465):1159–62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71879-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mallett Susan, Deeks Jonathan J, Halligan Steve, Hopewell Sally, Cornelius Victoria, Altman Douglas G. Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in cancer: review of methods and reporting. BMJ. 2006 Jul 18;333(7565):413. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38895.467130.55. http://bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=16849365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mills Edward, Loke Yoon K, Wu Ping, Montori Victor M, Perri Daniel, Moher David, Guyatt Gordon. Determining the reporting quality of RCTs in clinical pharmacology. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;58(1):61–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2004.2092.x. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15206994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Pocock Stuart J, Collier Timothy J, Dandreo Kimberley J, de Stavola Bianca L, Goldman Marlene B, Kalish Leslie A, Kasten Linda E, McCormack Valerie A. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ. 2004 Oct 06;329(7471):883. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38250.571088.55. http://bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15469946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Riley R D, Abrams K R, Sutton A J, Lambert P C, Jones D R, Heney D, Burchill S A. Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(8):1191–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Smidt Nynke, Rutjes Anne W, van der Windt Daniëlle A, Ostelo Raymond W, Reitsma Johannes B, Bossuyt Patrick M, Bouter Lex M, de Vet Henrica C W. Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology. 2005 Mar 15;235(2):347–53. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2352040507. http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15770041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bossuyt Patrick M, Reitsma Johannes B, Bruns David E, Gatsonis Constantine A, Glasziou Paul P, Irwig Les M, Lijmer Jeroen G, Moher David, Rennie Drummond, de Vet Henrica C W Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Clin Chem. 2003;49(1):1–6. doi: 10.1373/49.1.1. http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12507953. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Moher D, Cook D J, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D F. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1896–900. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Moher D, Schulz K F, Altman D G. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357(9263):1191–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.von Elm Erik, Altman Douglas G, Egger Matthias, Pocock Stuart J, Gøtzsche Peter C, Vandenbroucke Jan P STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296. http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Altman Douglas G. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors. BMJ. 2005;330(7499):1056–7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7499.1056. http://bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=15879389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Smidt Nynke, Overbeke John, de Vet Henrica, Bossuyt Patrick. Endorsement of the STARD Statement by biomedical journals: survey of instructions for authors. Clin Chem. 2007;53(11):1983–5. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.090167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.EQUATOR Network. Resource centre. 2007. [accessed 2007 Nov 29]. http://www.equator-network.org.