Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research
The following guidelines are currently being developed:
We encourage everyone to submit brief details about their reporting guideline under development for inclusion on the EQUATOR website. This will raise awareness about the development of your guideline and help to prevent duplication. To register your reporting guideline under development please complete our brief registration form (Word document).
An official extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement for reporting randomised controlled trials of social and psychological interventions is currently under development. A Delphi process to generate possible reporting standards for the guideline will take place in Fall 2013. Interested stakeholders should contact the project team to get involved in the development and dissemination of the guideline.
The STROBE Group have recently developed a checklist for conference abstracts.
Development of new guidelines for the reporting of meta-ethnography qualitative evidence syntheses.
The IDEAL (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long term follow up) framework (1) allows for the phased and sequential development of a new surgical innovation, optimizing patient safety as the evidence-base builds in a controlled and purposeful manner.
These guidelines aim to improve the completeness of reports and protocols for IDEAL Prospective Development Studies (PDS – phase 2a) and Prospective Exploration Studies (PES – phase 2b).
1. McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campbell WB, et al, for the Balliol Collaboration. No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations. Lancet 2009; 374: 1105–12.
To develop an extension to the reporting guideline for parallel cluster trials to produce recommended reporting guidelines for stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trials.
An official extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement for reporting equity focused randomised controlled trials is currently under development.
An official extension of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement defining standard protocol items for clinical trials in children is currently under development. A Delphi process to generate possible reporting standards for the guideline has taken place in Q2-3 2014. A Consensus meeting was held 15 September 2014.
An official extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement for reporting randomised controlled trials in children is currently under development. A Delphi process to generate possible reporting standards for the guideline has taken place in 2009-2010. A systematic review of the literature was conducted Q2-3 2014. A Consensus meeting was held 16 September 2014.
An official extension of the PRISMA 2009 Statement defining standard reporting items for systematic review in children is currently under development. A Delphi process to generate possible reporting standards for PRISMA-C and a consensus meeting have taken place in 2015; the reports are now being prepared.
An official extension of the PRISMA-P Statement defining standard protocol items for systematic review in children is currently under development. A Delphi process to generate possible reporting standards for PRISMA-PC and a consensus meeting have taken place in 2015; the reports are now being prepared.
Adapting TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist for reporting public health, health systems and social and environmental policy interventions with potential to affect population health which do not fit well within the existing TIDieR framework.
Diagnostic accuracy studies evaluate the ability of a diagnostic test to correctly identify patients as having or not having a particular disease. Readers of diagnostic accuracy study reports use abstracts to decide whether they should look for the full study report and invest time in reading it. This decision requires an informative description of the purpose, methods and results of the study. However, abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies often insufficiently report such information, making it difficult for readers to appraise the potential for bias and the applicability of the study findings.
Our goal is to develop, disseminate and implement a robust reporting guideline that will help improve the informativeness of abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies regarding essential items that are needed to evaluate elements of study validity.
This guideline is intended as an extension or add-on to other guidelines for specific research designs. It addresses how orthotic interventions should be reported within the context of any given quantitative study design.
Implementation research involves increasing access to health products and strategies that are already available and have been shown to work but remain beyond the reach of many of the people who could benefit from them. It is rooted in the identification of practical problems facing disease control programmes and in finding solutions which improve access to health interventions and lead to better health outcomes. Different research methods may be used depending on the type of problem studied.
Operational research uses an existing resource – the data routinely collected by programmes – to provide ways of improving programme operations and thereby delivering more effective, efficient and equitable care. Implementation and operational research are usually carried out in close collaboration between researchers and disease control programme staff.
This project aims to develop a comprehensive set of reporting guidelines for home visiting that improve and enhance the accuracy of reporting home visiting intervention evaluations. Specifically, the reporting guidelines focus on: (1) reporting effectiveness and efficacy studies, (2) incorporation of study designs endorsed by the Home Visiting Effectiveness of Evidence (HomVEE), and (3) inclusion of more thorough guidelines for reporting home visiting intervention design and implementation data.
This reporting guideline will address reporting for rapid reviews, including those with analogous terminology (e.g., rapid evidence synthesis, rapid knowledge synthesis).
The objective is to develop and implement a guideline for reporting diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews and meta-analyses – Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA).
Funded by CIHR Canada, a new evidence and consensus based reporting checklist for primary outcomes in clinical trial protocols and reports is currently under development. Clinical trialists, evidence end-users including systematic reviewers, and those involved in reporting guidelines development would be major beneficiaries of this checklist. It is the next step forward in current efforts to produce and harmonize transparent and reproducible RCT protocols and reports.
SPENT will extend the SPIRIT Statement (Standardized Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) to the reporting of individual and series N-of-1 trial protocols.
The objective is to develop a guideline to standardize the reporting of scoping reviews – Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
The Complex Interventions Workgroup aimed to develop PRISMA-CI as a stand-alone extension to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement. Development of PRISMA-IPD followed the EQUATOR Network framework guidance and used the existing standard PRISMA Statement as a starting point to draft additional relevant material. The statement development process included a literature review; interviews; and a modified Delphi process of international experts including researchers, clinicians, health system delivery representatives, methodologists, journal editors, reviewers, and funders; in-person conference discussions; iterative refinements of workgroups and an advisory group, and the Complex Interventions Workgroup reached agreement on the PRISMA-CI checklist by consensus.
The goals of COHERE are 1) to improve the quality of reporting of observational epidemiology studies integrating data on humans, animals and/or vectors, and their shared environments, and 2) to promote the concept that one health studies should integrate data from these three sectors.
We recently conducted a systematic review investigating reporting quality of patent or landscapes in the life sciences that is currently in preparation for submission. The systematic review concluded that articles pertaining to the reporting of patent landscaping were of overall poor quality. Notably, we found a lack of reporting of essential methodological elements with very few manuscripts providing enough information for them to be reproducible. This presents a significant problem as intellectual property (IP) plays a key role within life science research and the information provided in these reviews could very well be used to inform the decisions of academic centres, companies funding and policy. We therefore propose the development of guidelines for the reporting of patent/IP guidelines.
An initiative taken by a working group of ESPACOMP (the European Society for Patient Adherence, COMpliance, and Persistence) to develop guidelines for reporting research on medication adherence building on the ABC taxonomy for medication adherence (Vrijens et al. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2012 PMID: 22486599).
The guideline aims to provide items to use in the reporting of randomised controlled trials in which chronic medication is discontinued. The guideline can be used as an addition to the CONSORT statement.
This guideline is being developed to help researchers to report the long term impact of genocides, wars and mass atrocities on mental health.
The guideline contains international consensus on the minimum items that need to be included in a forensic medical expert opinion and how they should be reported.
The objective is to develop and implement a guideline for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in TCM, as a stand-alone extension to the PRISMA. The guideline contains 1) PRISMA for Chinese herb medicine, and 2) PRISMA for moxibustion.
Studies investigating causal mechanisms from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are becoming increasingly common. Despite growing numbers of publications and trialist embedding mechanism evaluations into RCTs, the reporting accuracy and consistency of mechanism studies is suboptimal. The heterogeneity in the reporting of mechanism evaluations stifles systematic reviews, complicates meta-analyses, and limits transparency and replication. The aim of this initiative is to develop a reporting guideline for mechanism evaluations in RCTs.
Guidance to help trials teams design surgical interventions in RCTs – to supplement information from CONSORT-NPT, SPIRIT and TIDieR.
A guide to designing economic evaluations to adhere to the CHEERS reporting guideline.
The aim is to develop reporting guidance to cover randomised trials that are designed using an adaptive design. This will encompass studies investigating the efficacy and effectiveness of investigative interventions on humans using either frequentist or Bayesian approach; phases 2, 2/3, and 3.
This guideline will encompass studies that report on association between environmental exposures and health outcomes.
This guideline will address reporting of overviews of reviews (overviews). Overviews are increasingly popular knowledge synthesis products that compile data from multiple systematic reviews to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. We intend to focus the guideline on reporting overviews of healthcare interventions.
This guideline aims to provide improved guidance on the conduct and reporting for systematic reviews of the effects of interventions where the findings are based on a narrative synthesis of quantitative data.
This proposed reporting guideline is born out of our work in the field of implementing large scale evidence based practices. We are currently involved in 3 systematic reviews of scaling up trials, one that we lead (see Effective interventions for scaling up evidence-based practices in primary care: a systematic review https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016041461) and the needs of policy makers in Canada. As director of the knowledge translation component of the CIHR FRQS MSSS Quebec SPOR SUPPORT unit (http://unitesoutiensrapqc.ca/composantes/application-des-connaissances/), we have been asked by policy makers to provide evidence of effective scaling up intervention. However, up to this point we observed very poor reporting. As concluded in one of our reports, “there are still many gaps in the science of scaling up in real-world health care settings”. These gaps are hampering policy makers as well as system managers, to ensure that the vast majority can benefit from the favourable impact of EBP. Canada is perceived as a country of perpetual pilot projects and there is a mounting frustration of not getting the return on investment of the billions of dollars spent on research in this country. The scaling-up of evidence-based practice (EBP) is a relatively new emerging concept in health. Although there is no definitive agreed upon definition, the World Health Organization defines it as deliberate efforts to increase the impact of successfully tested health innovations (EBP) so as to benefit more people and to foster policy and programme development on a lasting basis. Yet, there is a persistent failure to scale up EBPs, especially in high-income countries. Our ongoing systematic review on effective strategies for scaling up EBP in primary care, identified 25 studies. We observed the following gaps in knowledge: a) poor reporting; b) lack of a clear measure of the scaling up outcome (i.e., a measure of coverage with a numerator – the number of units covered by the EBP and a denominator – total number of units targeted); c) unclear distinction between the EBP and the strategies used to scale up the EBP; d) lack of rigorous studies from high income countries; d) poor representation of primary care clinical contexts; e) little assessment of potential harms; and f) absence of patients and public engagement in designing the scaling up strategies. Therefore, we would like to address the lack of a specific reporting guidelines on scaling up trials.
When guideline development is completed and the guideline is published we will remove it from this list and include it in our database of reporting guidelines.
Please do let us know about relevant projects; it will avoid duplication of the process and might also help you to find new collaborators. To register your reporting guideline under development please complete our brief registration form (Word document).
Page last updated on: 8 March 2017
|Diagnostic / prognostic studies||STARD||TRIPOD|
|Quality improvement studies||SQUIRE|
|Animal pre-clinical studies||ARRIVE|
|Clinical practice guidelines||AGREE||RIGHT|
For information about Library scope and content, identification of reporting guidelines and inclusion/exclusion criteria please visit About the Library.
Visit our Help page for information about searching for reporting guidelines and for general information about using our website.
Our full catalogue of reporting guidelines is available to download as a PDF: Reporting Guideline Catalogue May 2014.