Clinical research design and reporting: always room for improvement!
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the 1970s, TRANSFUSION was predominantly a serologic journal. Today, the journal reflects the growth and diversity within the transfusion medicine field where serology has expanded from blood cells to infectious organisms, agglutination stands in the shadows of molecular techniques, and clinical research has moved us to the bedside to identify efficacious and effective transfusion practices. As clinical research studies become more and more prevalent, it is our responsibility as transfusion medicine professionals to ensure that study design and clinical research result reporting is the best that it can possibly be. Some transfusion medicine researchers have had the benefit of formal training in clinical research method, whereas others are faced with the challenge of learning on the job. The reviewers, editorial board, and editors of TRANSFUSION work hard to ensure that accepted publications are of high quality and methodologically sound; however, like many aspects of transfusion medicine, continuous quality improvement should always be the ultimate goal. The journal editors have identified a number of tools that can assist in this process, which we describe in this editorial. Anyone involved in clinical research will benefit from utilizing the CONSORT guidelines when designing clinical research studies and reporting study results.1 CONSORT activities started in 1996 when a group of individuals with expertise in clinical research method met to develop guidelines for reporting randomized trials. The CONSORT statement evolved into an important research tool that comprises a checklist and flow diagram to assist researchers to improve the quality of reports. The checklist includes a list and description of items that need to be addressed when designing and reporting a study, and the recommended flow diagram allows readers to clearly understand the progress of all participants in the trial. These guidelines also serve as a useful tool when designing a clinical study as it forces the researcher to consider many methodological issues before any patients are enrolled. The CONSORT guidelines are available in a number of languages and can be accessed at the Web site http://www.consort-statement.org/.1 This Web site also provides information on other CONSORT activities including guidelines for cluster trials, randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions, reporting of noninferiority and equivalence trials, and issues related to the reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies.2,3 Although some journals have made it mandatory for submissions to follow the CONSORT guidelines, at this point in time TRANSFUSION is strongly recommending that both authors and reviewers utilize the guidelines to improve clinical research reporting in the journal. Although we are not mandating CONSORT as a formal requirement at this time, we may elect to do so when we are convinced that our readership is more aware of these issues. The second clinical research tool endorsed by the editors of TRANSFUSION is to ensure that all clinical trials are registered before the first patient is enrolled. This task can be performed on the Web site http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/.4 The concept of clinical trial registration was first proposed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in 2004 to deal with the problem of selective trial reporting.5 It is well acknowledged that trials showing a significant treatment effect are more likely to be published than inconclusive or negative trials. The solution to this problem proposed by the ICMJE was to register all trials before enrollment is started on a registry that is accessible to the public, open to all prospective registrants, and operated by a not-for-profit organization.5-7 Such a registry would also provide a comprehensive publicly available database of clinical trials and “would be a fitting way to thank the thousands of participants who have placed themselves at risk by volunteering for clinical trials.”6 Although TRANSFUSION has not currently made this registration a mandatory requirement, the editors strongly endorse the concept and encourage all transfusion researchers to register their trials. Finally, to assist the transfusion community to improve clinical research reporting, the journal has established a section entitled “Clinical Research Focus.” This series is currently scheduled to run bimonthly and will contain short articles focusing on a specific aspect of clinical research method. We hope that these topics will be of interest to researchers, reviewers, and trainees and will improve the awareness of the many aspects of clinical research design that must be considered to ensure internaland external validity of the results. The first article in this series appears in this volume of the journal and is focused on the most important aspect of a research project—the question. We hope that the readers of TRANSFUSION enjoy this series and find the articles useful tools to continuously improve research and educational activities in transfusion medicine.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,610 | 0,248 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».