Initiatives for reporting biomedical research results with different types of designs

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookEmail this to someoneShare on Google+

Carlos Manterola; Tamara Otzen; Nicolas Lorenzini; Andrés Díaz; Rodrigo Torres-Quevedo & Nataniel Claros


Quality of results reporting is not perfect, many initiatives tending to improve this aspect of clinical research have been developed in the last decade. The aim of this manuscript is to mention and describe the existent initiatives for reporting biomedical research results in different scenarios and special situations. To obtain check-lists, a search in THE COCHRANE LIBRARY, MEDLINE, SciELO y Redalyc; Clinical Evidence, TRIP database, Fisterra, Rafabravo, EQUATOR Network, BIREME and HINARI Program was developed. Identified documents were grouped in relation with clinical research scenarios (therapy, diagnosis, prognosis and economic evaluations) and miscellaneous. The search allows finding 31 documents. Twelve for therapy (CONSORT, QUOROM, MOOSE,STRICTA, TREND, MINCIR-Therapy, RedHot, REHBaR, PRISMA,REFLECT, Ottawa and SPIRIT), 5 for diagnosis (STARD, QUADAS, QAREL, GRRAS and MINCIR-Diagnosis), 3 for prognosis (REMARK, MINCIR-Prognosis and GRIPS), 4 for economic evaluations (NHS- HTA, CHEERS, ISPOR RCT-CEA and NICE-STA,) and 7 miscellaneous (STROBE, COREQ, GRADE, SQUIRE, STREGA, ORION and MINCIR-EOD). Different initiatives and statements were found. These must be noted and used by writers, reviewers and editors of biomedical journals, in order to improve the quality of reporting results.

KEY WORDS: Research Report; Research Design; Therapeutics; Diagnosis; Prognosis; Economic evaluations.

How to cite this article

MANTEROLA, C.; OTZEN, T.; LORENZINI, N.; DÍAZ, A.; TORRES-QUEVEDO, R. & CLAROS, N. Initiatives for reporting biomedical research results with different types of designs. Int. J. Morphol., 31(3):945-956, 2013.