2.1: Information & Practices
[Ensure that] key information is included and advisable methodological practices are identified "naturally" and systematically
in the review process.
Other Information:
Why are checklists needed? The most straightforward reason is that key information is left out with stunning frequency, and
advisable methodological practices are not identified "naturally" or systematically in the review process. For example, the
value of reporting effect sizes has been widely disseminated (Cohen, 1962, 1969, 1992; Wilkinson and Task Force on Statistical
Inference, 1999). Nonetheless, reporting effect sizes has become common only in recent history and is still not standard practice.
A checklist requiring their inclusion before publication would change this. Further, Bouwmeester and colleagues examined 71
prediction studies from high-impact medical journals and found pervasive methodological shortcomings in design, reporting,
and analysis decisions, such as clear specification of predictor and outcome variables, description of participant exclusion
criteria, and handling of missing values (Bouwmeester et al., 2012). They concluded that "The majority of prediction studies
in high impact journals do not follow current methodological recommendations, limiting their reliability and applicability."
High standards for publication do not translate into specific standards for reporting.
Indicator(s):
|
