Methods and results of studies on reporting guideline adherence are poorly reported: a meta-research study

Abstract

ObjectivesWe investigated recent meta-research studies on adherence to four reporting guidelines to determine the proportion that provided (1) an explanation for how adherence to guideline items was rated and (2) results from all included individual studies. We examined conclusions of each meta-research study to evaluate possible repetitive and similar findings. Study Design and SettingA cross-sectional meta-research study. MEDLINE (Ovid) was searched on July 5, 2022 for studies that used any version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, or Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology reporting guidelines or their extensions to evaluate reporting. ResultsOf 148 included meta-research studies published between August 2020 and June 2022, 14 (10%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 6%–15%) provided a fully replicable explanation of how they coded the adherence ratings and 49 (33%, 95% CI 26%–41%) completely reported individual study results. Of 90 studies that classified reporting as adequate or inadequate in the study abstract, six (7%, 95% CI 3%–14%) concluded that reporting was adequate, but none of those six studies provided information on how items were coded or provided item-level results for included studies. ConclusionAlmost all included meta-research studies found that reporting in health research is suboptimal. However, few of these reported enough information for verification or replication.