Our study aimed to amplify and explain the items of statistical reporting requirements proposed by medical journals, and to improve the statistical reporting quality of medical articles. Statistical reporting requirements were obtained from the reporting standards published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) network, and the editorial board of Chinese Medical Journal, etc. The items involved in statistical reporting requirements were summarized as issues of study design, statistical analysis, and interpretation of results. Each item was amplified based on cases of original articles. It is noticeable that the statistical reporting requirements of English medical journals generally referring to guidance documents, including "Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals" proposed by the ICMJE, or the statements for different study types published by the EQUATOR network, where the statistical reporting of medical articles had been detailed specified. The statistical reporting requirements of Chinese medical journals, however, were usually stated by the editorial boards. Although the formats and contents of statistical analysis had been regulated, the requirements of Chinese medical journals were to some extent insufficient and should be enhanced in accordance with the international standards. In conclusion, the amplification and explanation of statistical reporting requirements were expected to help investigators understand the requirements for statistical reporting in medical researches, so as to effectively improve the quality of medical articles.
Biomedical Research ; Editorial Policies ; Humans ; Periodicals as Topic/standards* ; Publishing/standards* ; Reference Standards ; Research Design

No abstract available.
Humans ; Periodicals as Topic/standards/*trends ; Publishing/standards/trends ; Republic of Korea ; Urology/standards/*trends

Citations to scholarly items are building bricks for multidisciplinary science communication. Citation analyses are currently influencing individual career advancement and ranking of academic and research institutions worldwide. This article overviews the involvement of scientific authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, indexers, and learned associations in the citing and referencing to preserve the integrity of science communication. Authors are responsible for thorough bibliographic searches to select relevant references for their articles, comprehend main points, and cite them in an ethical way. Reviewers and editors may perform additional searches and recommend missing essential references. Publishers, in turn, are in a position to instruct their authors over the citations and references, provide tools for validation of references, and open access to bibliographies. Publicly available reference lists bear important information about the novelty and relatedness of the scholarly items with the published literature. Few editorial associations have dealt with the issue of citations and properly managed references. As a prime example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued in December 2014 an updated set of recommendations on the need for citing primary literature and avoiding unethical references, which are applicable to the global scientific community. With the exponential growth of literature and related references, it is critically important to define functions of all stakeholders of science communication in curbing the issue of irrational and unethical citations and thereby improve the quality and indexability of scholarly journals.
Authorship/standards ; *Bibliography as Topic ; *Editorial Policies ; Information Dissemination/ethics ; Peer Review, Research/ethics/*standards ; Periodicals as Topic/ethics/*standards ; Publishing/ethics/*standards ; Quality Control ; Science/ethics/standards ; Writing/*standards

No abstract available.
Humans ; Journal Impact Factor ; Publishing/ethics/*standards ; Research ; Research Personnel/ethics

OBJECTIVETo determine the extent to which Chinese medical (CM) journals incorporate Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) into their "instruction to authors".

METHODSWe reviewed the latest "instruction to authors" of the CM journals in China which indexed by MEDLINE in 2010 or Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) in 2012 and extracted all information of CONSORT, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), other reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. By reading the instructions to authors and reviewing recent studies published in those journals, those that do not publish clinical trials were excluded. We also contacted each of journals by telephone on contributor's status to ask them whether mentioned CONSORT in their instructions and incorporated it into their editorial and peer-review process. Full-text papers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs, from January 2011 to March 2012) published in the journals which mentioned "CONSORT" in their instructions for authors were downloaded.

RESULTSSeven CM journals were included. Three of these journals mentioned CONSORT in its instructions. By telephone survey, all journals gave responses and all respondents knew CONSORT statement. Three of 7 journals required authors to comply with the CONSORT statement and provide the CONSORT checklist and a flow chart of the trial. The rest 4 journals recommended authors of RCTs to refer to the CONSORT statement. From January 2011 to March 2012, a total of 50 RCTs were obtained from the 3 journals endorsing the CONSORT statement; 17 (17/50, 34%) contained a flow diagram in their manuscript, and none of those RCTs had mentioned the trial registration information.

CONCLUSIONSThe endorsement of CONSORT by CM journals' "instruction to authors" was not satisfactory. The spread of CONSORT endorsement should be wider in instructing the performance of CM clinical trials in the future. Chinese journals should introduce CONSORT to their authors and require authors to comply with CONSORT when they submit their research.

Data Collection ; Editorial Policies ; Humans ; Medicine, Chinese Traditional ; standards ; Periodicals as Topic ; standards ; Publishing ; standards ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; standards

Child ; China ; Humans ; Pediatrics ; Periodicals as Topic ; standards ; statistics & numerical data ; Publishing ; standards ; statistics & numerical data ; Quality Control

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of meta-analysis regarding exercise using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) as well as to compare effect size according to outcomes. METHODS: Electronic databases including the Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS), the National Assembly Library and the DBpia, HAKJISAand RISS4U for the dates 1990 to January 2014 were searched for 'meta-analysis' and 'exercise' in the fields of medical, nursing, physical therapy and physical exercise in Korea. AMSTAR was scored for quality assessment of the 33 articles included in the study. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-test, ANOVA and chi2-test. RESULTS: The mean score for AMSTAR evaluations was 4.18 (SD=1.78) and about 67% were classified at the low-quality level and 30% at the moderate-quality level. The scores of quality were statistically different by field of research, number of participants, number of databases, financial support and approval by IRB. The effect size that presented in individual studies were different by type of exercise in the applied intervention. CONCLUSION: This critical appraisal of meta-analysis published in various field that focused on exercise indicates that a guideline such as the PRISMA checklist should be strongly recommended for optimum reporting of meta-analysis across research fields.
Databases, Factual ; *Exercise ; Humans ; Publishing/*standards ; Republic of Korea ; Research

OBJECTIVETo explore academic significance and guiding function played by subspecialty groups of the Society of Pediatrics, Chinese Medical Association on Chinese pediatric clinical practice through a statistical analysis of the articles published by the subspecialty groups.

METHODBibliometric methods were used to analyze the number of articles, article types, total citations, highly cited articles and the distribution of citing journals.

RESULTTotally 7 156 articles were published in Chinese Journal of Pediatrics from 1993 (31) to 2012 (51), of which 187 by subspecialty groups of pediatrics (2.6%), with a total citations of 11 985. Among them, 137 articles were cited with a citation rate of 73.3% and average citations for each article was 64.1. Articles classified as clinical guidelines had been totally cited for 10 900 times with average citations of 123.86 per article. The article on Neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy diagnosis and clinical index was cited 1 791 times ranked in highly cited literatures. All the top three cited literature periodicals were core journals of pediatrics, and 10 periodicals among the top 20 were in pediatrics and the rest in other medical fields.

CONCLUSIONThe number of the articles published by the subspecialty groups of pediatrics was increasing year by year though the portion it in the total number of the articles in the journal was not large. However, the citation frequency of the articles by the subspecialty groups of pediatrics was high, making an obvious contribution to the total citations of Chinese Journal of Pediatrics. The total citation rate of clinical guideline articles and their average rate was higher than those of other articles published in this journal, which meant that this type of articles provided academic references with guiding significance for clinical practice of pediatrics and for other medical fields as well.

Bibliometrics ; China ; Pediatrics ; Periodicals as Topic ; standards ; statistics & numerical data ; Publishing ; statistics & numerical data ; Review Literature as Topic

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate measurement properties of self-report questionnaires for studies published in Korean nursing journals. METHODS: Of 424 Korean nursing articles initially identified, 168 articles met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the measurements used in the studies and interpretability were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. It consists of items on internal consistency, reliability, measurement error, content validity, construct validity including structural validity, hypothesis testing, cross-cultural validity, and criterion validity, and responsiveness. For each item of the COSMIN checklist, measurement properties are rated on a four-point scale: excellent, good, fair, and poor. Each measurement property is scored with worst score counts. RESULTS: All articles used the classical test theory for measurement properties. Internal consistency (72.6%), construct validity (56.5%), and content validity (38.2%) were most frequently reported properties being rated as 'excellent' by COSMIN checklist, whereas other measurement properties were rarely reported. CONCLUSION: A systematic review of measurement properties including interpretability of most instruments warrants further research and nursing-focused checklists assessing measurement properties should be developed to facilitate intervention outcomes across Korean studies.
Databases, Factual ; Humans ; *Publishing ; Questionnaires ; Republic of Korea ; Research/standards ; *Self Report

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is twofold: 1) introducing logistic regression (LR), a multivariable method for modeling the relationship between multiple independent variables and a categorical dependent variable, and 2) examining use and reporting of LR in the nursing literature. METHODS: Text books on LR and research articles employing LR as main statistical analysis were reviewed. Twenty-three articles published between 2010 and 2011 in the Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing were analyzed for proper use and reporting of LR models. RESULTS: Logistic regression from basic concepts such as odds, odds ratio, logit transformation and logistic curve, assumption, fitting, reporting and interpreting to cautions were presented. Substantial shortcomings were found in both use of LR and reporting of results. For many studies, sample size was not sufficiently large to call into question the accuracy of the regression model. Additionally, only one study reported validation analysis. CONCLUSION: Nursing researchers need to pay greater attention to guidelines concerning the use and reporting of LR models.
Humans ; Logistic Models ; *Models, Statistical ; Odds Ratio ; Publishing/standards ; *Research