The Importance of Reporting Guidelines
The use of reporting guidelines is critical for the creation of transparent, accurate, reliable, and replicable scientific research publications. The EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) is an international effort to help encourage the widespread use of reporting guidelines in health research.
The EQUATOR Network maintains a searchable database of reporting guidelines online, in addition to tutorials and tool kits designed to improve scientific writing.
In a clear signal about the importance of appropriate reporting, in 2017 the journal Implementation Science published ✪ Enhancing the reporting of implementation research in order to clearly identify for researchers the specific reporting issues necessary to enhance the scientific reporting quality and transparency of the manuscripts submitted.
For an expert review of why reporting standards are critical, be sure to watch the National Cancer Institute's archived webinar "Reporting Guidelines, Measures and Harmonization".
While not exhaustive, outlined below is a selection of reporting guidelines most often used in implementation science.
Open Access articles will be marked with ✪
Please note some journals will require subscriptions to access a linked article.
Reporting Standards to Know
Rigorous Standards For Publishing On Racial Health Inequities
Racial health inequities are alarming and addressing them requires rigorous publication standards to ensure researchers, editors, reviewers, and readers examine racism as a cause of gaps in health outcomes by race. In response to the continued practice in health equity research of invoking biology-as-cause while dodging systemic racism, Dr. Rhea W. Boyd and colleagues wrote a very clear blog post to set the new bar for publishing on race in medicine and health.
If your research includes race as a variable, make sure you are reporting and framing your work with these standards:
- Define race during the experimental design, and specify the reason for its use in the study
- Name racism (its form, mechanisms, and intersectionalities)
- Never offer genetic interpretations of race (because such suppositions are not grounded in science)
- Solicit patient input
- Identify the stakes
- Cite the experts, particularly scholars of color
Implementation Strategies - Recommendations for Specifying and Reporting
In 2013, Proctor, Powell and McMillen published their recommendations for naming, defining and operationalizing seven dimensions of implementation strategies: actor, the action, action targets, temporality, dose, implementation outcomes addressed, and theoretical justification. These recommendations responded to the poor description, inconsistent labeling, and lack of theoretical underpinning characteristic of most implementation research.
✪ Implementation Strategies - Recommendations for Specifying and Reporting (Implementation Science, 2013)
Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (STaRI)
The STaRI initiative developed this 27 item checklist to improve the scientific reporting of implementation strategies. The checklist prompts both the detailed description of the intervention strategy used as well as a detailed description of the intervention effectiveness. The STaRI checklist is not specific to a particular research methodology, and can be applied to the wide range of study designs used in implementation science.
✪ Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (STaRI) Statement (BMJ, 2017)
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)
First published in 1996, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement aims to improve the quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The CONSORT statement was revised in 2001 and again in 2010 to improve wording and clarify previous versions.
✓ Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Online
✪ CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (BMJ, 2010)
✪ CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (BMJ, 2010)
✓ CONSORT EQUATOR Network profile
Selected Extensions:
CONSORT Harms: ✪ Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT Statement (Annals of Internal Medicine, 2004)
CONSORT Cluster: ✪ CONSORT Group. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials (BMJ, 2012)
CONSORT Pilot & Feasibility: ✪ CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials (Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 2016)
Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)
The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) were published in 2014 to improve transparent reporting of the very broad range of qualitative research. This 21-item checklist outlines the minimum criteria that should be present in qualitative research reporting, explicitly addressing differences from quantitative reporting.
✪ Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations - Published by Academic Medicine, 2014
✓ SRQR EQUATOR Network profile
Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ)
The Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) statement was published in 2012 to assist researchers in synthesizing qualitative health research. Comprised of 21 items, this checklist outlines how to find, assess, and synthesize qualitative health research.
Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) Statement (BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2012)
Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR)
An international panel of experts developed this checklist to improve the quality of intervention description in published research. The checklist is intended to guide authors in their reporting of interventions, as well as to aid reviewers and editors in their decisions regarding evidence of necessary reporting. The ultimate goal of the checklist is to ensure that publications contain clear and accurate accounts of interventions.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Checklist
In 2005 a stakeholder panel was convened to adapt the 1996 QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses (QUOROM), with adaptation focusing on sub-optimal reporting of meta-analyses, capturing the iterative nature of systematic reviews, and reporting on bias. The resulting instrument was named Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), to reflect the incorporation of both systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
✪ Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (PLOS Medicine, 2009)
✓ PRISMA EQUATOR Network profile
Extensions:
✓ PRISMA Harms: This extension identifies a minimal set of items that should be reported when adverse events are reviewed. See PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews (BMJ, 2016) for more information.
✓ PRISMA - Equity 2012: This extension seeks to improve transparency and completeness of reporting systematic reviews focused on equity. See ✪ Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): Explanation and elaboration (International Journal for Equity in Health, 2015) for more information.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Cochrane reviews are systematic reviews of primary human health research focusing on the effects of interventions. The stringent guidelines adhered to in a Cochrane review are internationally recognized as the gold standard, with their reviews being peer-reviewed and regularly updated.
✪ Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 - Published by Cochrane.org, 2011
✓ Cochrane Systematic Reviews EQUATOR Network profile
💻 Cochrane Interactive Learning Module 1: Introduction to conducting systematic reviews
Extensions:
✓ Methodological Expectations for Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR)
WIDER Recommendations for Reporting of Behavior Change Interventions
In response to Michie et al's paper ✪ Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method, Albrecht et al used the 2007 ✪ Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) Recommendations to develop a checklist operationalizing each of the recommendations.
✪ Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) Recommendations (Implementation Science, 2013)
Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences
In 2010, The Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) commissioned a working group to evaluate and make recommendations on best practices for mixed methods research. The resulting report provides best practice recommendations for grant applicants, reviewers, and stakeholders engaging in health services mixed methods research.
✓ Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences (The Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research, 2010)
Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public 2 (GRIPP2)
In 2017, the first international guidance on reporting patient and public involvement in health research was published. The original GRIPP checklist was revised using the EQUATOR method of developing reporting guidelines, and is available in both a short and long form version.
✪ GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research (BMJ, 2017)
Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)
Economic evaluation data is increasingly used to make allocation decisions, but a lack of transparency can make it difficult for decision makers to use or find economic evaluation data. Published by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research in 2013 as an attempt to consolidate and clarify existing economic evaluation guidelines, the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) is a 24-item checklist intended for researchers, editors, and peer reviewers.
✪ Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement (BioMed Central, 2013)