The surgical case report（SCARE）statement is the report checklist made by European researchers in 2016, which is specialized for surgical case report. As a reference for enhancing the research quality and transparency, the SCARE statement provides a fundamental framework for surgical case reports. The last SCARE statement was revised in 2020, and this paper interprets it to provide a practical tool for domestic researchers in surgical case report.
An intervention with clinical application must be effective and safe, therefore, when evaluating interventions, the benefit-harm ratio should be considered, and only those interventions with more benefits than harms have application value. To evaluate the benefits and harms of an intervention evidence of both benefits and harms should be reported in clinical trials. To promote better reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials, the CONSORT group had added an entry on harms in the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement, and then in 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated, the reporting of harms is still inadequate. The CONSORT group has updated《Better reporting of harms in randomized trial: an extension of the CCONSORT statement.》, published《CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials》. This article presents and explains the Harms 2022, with the aim of helping researchers better understand and use the statement, with a view to improving the reporting quality of harms in clinical trials.
In recent years, the potential value of clinical big data have been gradually realized, and disease prediction models have begun to become a hot spot in clinical research. Predictive models of different types of diseases play an increasingly important role in individual risk assessment. However, due to the lack of reporting specifications for studies on disease prediction model, the structure and quality of reports are mostly mixed. In 2015, BMJ published a paper entitled "Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement" stated that there should be a uniform study of predictive models for disease diagnosis and prognosis. This article interprets key contents of the statement to promote research and understanding of the report specification.
According to the evidence pyramid model, systematic review (SR)/meta-analysis (MA) is one of the essential sources with a high level of clinical evidence. A high-quality SR/MA can effectively guide clinical decision-making and practice. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for Chinese herbal medicines (PRISMA-CHM) were officially published in 2020. In this study, based on research cases, the features of PRISMA-CHM were interpreted in detail, so as to help domestic users accurately grasp the details of the reports, in order to improve the quality of the reports of SR/MA of traditional Chinese medicine.
With the increasingly prominent contradiction between limited health resources and the growing population, priority setting of health research, as a response, has received widespread attention from health systems worldwide. As the results of priority setting at different levels increase year by year, some questions in the results reporting are also constantly emerging. For example, the process of producing the results is vague, too dependent on individual subjective judgment, the participation of individual stakeholder groups is limited or lack of voice, unable to identify potential conflicts of interest, and so on. It does not only seriously affect the effectiveness and rationality of the results themselves, but also create intangible obstacles to their promotion and adoption. In 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology published ‘Reporting guideline for priority setting of health research (REPRISE)’, which makes uniform specifications for more comprehensive and consistent reporting of results in priority areas. This paper interpreted the background, formulation process and key contents of the REPRISE guideline, with an aim to promote the application of the reporting guideline in China.
The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is fundamental to the value of evidence in evidence-based medicine. As the internationally endorsed standard, the PRISMA statement and its extensive suite of extensions are crucial for standardizing reporting and enhancing transparency. However, a comprehensive, systematic understanding of its entire framework and profound challenges remains inadequate in the academic community. This review aims to systematically delineate and deeply analyze the complete PRISMA reporting guideline framework, evaluate its application value, uncover its implementation challenges, and forecast its future development directions. This paper traces PRISMA's evolution from its predecessor, QUOROM, to PRISMA 2020, highlighting key shifts in its core principles. It systematically constructs a multi-dimensional framework for the PRISMA family for the first time, categorizing its extensions by foundational versions, study design/analysis types, reporting process stages, disciplinary domains, and specific areas of focus, complemented by a forward-looking analysis of tools currently under development. The review delves into the deep-seated challenges in PRISMA's implementation, including misconceptions, inconsistent application, cross-disciplinary adaptability, and methodological limitations. It proposes that its future lies in balancing standardization with flexibility, enhancing globalized application, and deeply integrating with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. The PRISMA framework has evolved from a mere reporting checklist into a core methodological architecture that promotes standardization throughout the entire evidence synthesis lifecycle. The continuous optimization and proper application of this framework are of critical theoretical and practical significance for enhancing the overall quality and impact of evidence synthesis research globally.
ObjectiveTo construct rapid health technology assessment (RHTA) reporting norms, with a view to providing methodological references for RHTA research and reporting. MethodsBased on the preliminary pool of entries constructed by the literature research results, and taking into account the characteristics of RHTA, a Delphi expert correspondence questionnaire was designed, and 25 experts in the field of HTA were selected to conduct multiple rounds of expert correspondence. By calculating the expert authority coefficient and opinion coordination coefficient, combined with the average value of the entry score, coefficient of variation and full score ratio, the entries were selected to form the list of RHTA report specifications. ResultsThe positive coefficient of experts in both rounds of investigation was 100%, the expert authority coefficient in the first round was 0.858, and the expert authority coefficient in the second round was 0.838. The Kendall coordination coefficient in the first round was 0.169, and in the second round it was 0.081. According to the correspondence of 2 rounds of investigation, the final formation included 8 aspects, 26 first-level entries and 18 second-level entries in the list of RHTA report specifications. ConclusionThis study constructed the RHTA report specification, which is both scientific and operable, providing a reference for RHTA report writing.
Adherence to reporting guidelines contributes to report methodology and outcomes of research distinctly and transparently. There are some checklists with specific study types related to surgery on the EQUATOR Network’s website. However, the IDEAL framework focuses on stepwise evaluation of surgical innovation through all stages with some key elements, which those existing guidelines may not mention. This likely results in the inaccuracy in reporting in studies attempting to follow the IDEAL recommendations and suggests a pressing need for IDEAL reporting guidelines. Considering these limitations, the IDEAL developed the IDEAL reporting guidelines between October 2018 and May 2019. The paper aimed to provide interpretation of IDEAL reporting guideline, and promote its understanding and use among Chinese researchers.