Reporting Experiments in Homeopathic Basic Research—Description of the Checklist Development

The objective of this study was to develop a criteria catalogue serving as a guideline for authors to improve quality of reporting experiments in basic research in homeopathy. A Delphi Process was initiated including three rounds of adjusting and phrasing plus two consensus conferences. European researchers who published experimental work within the last 5 years were involved. A checklist for authors provide a catalogue with 23 criteria. The “Introduction” should focus on underlying hypotheses, the homeopathic principle investigated and state if experiments are exploratory or confirmatory. “Materials and methods” should comprise information on object of investigation, experimental setup, parameters, intervention and statistical methods. A more detailed description on the homeopathic substances, for example, manufacture, dilution method, starting point of dilution is required. A further result of the Delphi process is to raise scientists' awareness of reporting blinding, allocation, replication, quality control and system performance controls. The part “Results” should provide the exact number of treated units per setting which were included in each analysis and state missing samples and drop outs. Results presented in tables and figures are as important as appropriate measures of effect size, uncertainty and probability. “Discussion” in a report should depict more than a general interpretation of results in the context of current evidence but also limitations and an appraisal of aptitude for the chosen experimental model. Authors of homeopathic basic research publications are encouraged to apply our checklist when preparing their manuscripts. Feedback is encouraged on applicability, strength and limitations of the list to enable future revisions.

The GABRIEL Advanced Surveys: study design, participation and evaluation of bias

Exposure to farming environments has been shown to protect substantially against asthma and atopic disease across Europe and in other parts of the world. The GABRIEL Advanced Surveys (GABRIELA) were conducted to determine factors in farming environments which are fundamental to protecting against asthma and atopic disease. The GABRIEL Advanced Surveys have a multi-phase stratified design. In a first-screening phase, a comprehensive population-based survey was conducted to assess the prevalence of exposure to farming environments and of asthma and atopic diseases (n = 103,219). The second phase was designed to ascertain detailed exposure to farming environments and to collect biomaterial and environmental samples in a stratified random sample of phase 1 participants (n = 15,255). A third phase was carried out in a further stratified sample only in Bavaria, southern Germany, aiming at in-depth respiratory disease and exposure assessment including extensive environmental sampling (n = 895). Participation rates in phase 1 were around 60% but only about half of the participating study population consented to further study modules in phase 2. We found that consenting behaviour was related to familial allergies, high parental education, wheeze, doctor diagnosed asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis, and to a lesser extent to exposure to farming environments. The association of exposure to farm environments with asthma or rhinoconjunctivitis was not biased by participation or consenting behaviour. The GABRIEL Advanced Surveys are one of the largest studies to shed light on the protective 'farm effect' on asthma and atopic disease. Bias with regard to the main study question was able to be ruled out by representativeness and high participation rates in phases 2 and 3. The GABRIEL Advanced Surveys have created extensive collections of questionnaire data, biomaterial and environmental samples promising new insights into this area of research.

Reporting of consistency of blood pressure control in randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive drugs: a systematic review of 1372 trial reports

Hypertension is a powerful treatable risk factor for stroke. Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antihypertensive drugs rightly concentrate on clinical outcomes, but control of blood pressure (BP) during follow-up is also important, particularly given that inconsistent control is associated with a high risk of stroke and that antihypertensive drug classes differ in this regard.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011

Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals.

A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics

Abstract Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria). Materials and Methods: Systematic reviews (n  =  109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken. Results: The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant. Conclusion: Compliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.