Reporting Guidelines for Survey Research: An Analysis of Published Guidance and Reporting Practices

被引:292
作者
Bennett, Carol [1 ]
Khangura, Sara [1 ]
Brehaut, Jamie C. [1 ,2 ]
Graham, Ian D. [3 ]
Moher, David [1 ,2 ]
Potter, Beth K. [2 ]
Grimshaw, Jeremy M. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[2] Univ Ottawa, Dept Epidemiol & Community Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[3] Canadian Inst Hlth Res, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Ottawa, Dept Med, Ottawa, ON, Canada
基金
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; RESPONSE RATES; QUALITY; STANDARDS; QUESTIONNAIRES; NONRESPONSE; STATEMENT; CHECKLIST; CONDUCT; AUTHORS;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pmed.1001069
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Research needs to be reported transparently so readers can critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the design, conduct, and analysis of studies. Reporting guidelines have been developed to inform reporting for a variety of study designs. The objective of this study was to identify whether there is a need to develop a reporting guideline for survey research. Methods and Findings: We conducted a three-part project: (1) a systematic review of the literature (including "Instructions to Authors'' from the top five journals of 33 medical specialties and top 15 general and internal medicine journals) to identify guidance for reporting survey research; (2) a systematic review of evidence on the quality of reporting of surveys; and (3) a review of reporting of key quality criteria for survey research in 117 recently published reports of self-administered surveys. Fewer than 7% of medical journals (n = 165) provided guidance to authors on survey research despite a majority having published survey-based studies in recent years. We identified four published checklists for conducting or reporting survey research, none of which were validated. We identified eight previous reviews of survey reporting quality, which focused on issues of non-response and accessibility of questionnaires. Our own review of 117 published survey studies revealed that many items were poorly reported: few studies provided the survey or core questions (35%), reported the validity or reliability of the instrument (19%), defined the response rate (25%), discussed the representativeness of the sample (11%), or identified how missing data were handled (11%). Conclusions: There is limited guidance and no consensus regarding the optimal reporting of survey research. The majority of key reporting criteria are poorly reported in peer-reviewed survey research articles. Our findings highlight the need for clear and consistent reporting guidelines specific to survey research.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 31 条
[21]   Evidence-based approaches for the Ayurvedic traditional herbal formulations: Toward an Ayurvedic CONSORT model [J].
Narahari, Saravu R. ;
Ryan, Terence J. ;
Aggithaya, Madhur Guruprasad ;
Bose, Kuttaje S. ;
Prasanna, Kodimoole S. .
JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE, 2008, 14 (06) :769-776
[22]   Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review [J].
Plint, Amy C. ;
Moher, David ;
Morrison, Andra ;
Schulz, Kenneth ;
Altman, Douglas G. ;
Hill, Catherine ;
Gaboury, Isabelle .
MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2006, 185 (05) :263-267
[23]   A Systematic Evaluation of the Impact of STRICTA and CONSORT Recommendations on Quality of Reporting for Acupuncture Trials [J].
Prady, Stephanie L. ;
Richmond, Stewart J. ;
Morton, Veronica M. ;
MacPherson, Hugh .
PLOS ONE, 2008, 3 (02)
[24]   Invited commentary: The art of making questionnaires better [J].
Rosen, Tony ;
Olsen, Jorn .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 164 (12) :1145-1149
[25]   Inaccessible novel questionnaires in published medical research: Hidden methods, hidden costs [J].
Schilling, Lisa M. ;
Kozak, Katarzyna ;
Lundahl, Kristy ;
Dellavalle, Robert P. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 164 (12) :1141-1144
[26]   The EQUATOR Network and reporting guidelines: Helping to achieve high standards in reporting health research studies [J].
Simera, Iveta ;
Moher, David ;
Hoey, John ;
Schulz, Kenneth F. ;
Altman, Douglas G. .
MATURITAS, 2009, 63 (01) :4-6
[27]   The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement - Has it improved? [J].
Smidt, N. ;
Rutjes, A. W. S. ;
van der Windt, D. A. W. M. ;
Ostelo, R. W. J. G. ;
Bossuyt, P. M. ;
Reitsma, J. B. ;
Bouter, L. M. ;
de Vet, H. C. W. .
NEUROLOGY, 2006, 67 (05) :792-797
[28]   Quality of reporting Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in nursing literature: Application of the Consolidated Standards Reporting Trials (CONSORT) [J].
Smith, Barbara A. ;
Lee, Hyeon-Joo ;
Lee, Ju Hee ;
Choi, Mona ;
Jones, Deborah E. ;
Bousell, R. Barker ;
Broome, Marion E. .
NURSING OUTLOOK, 2008, 56 (01) :31-37
[29]   Reporting survey nonresponse in academic journals [J].
Smith, TW .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH, 2002, 14 (04) :469-474
[30]   The reporting of nonresponse analyses in survey research [J].
Werner, Steve ;
Praxedes, Moira ;
Kim, Hyun-Gyu .
ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS, 2007, 10 (02) :287-295