什么是文章报告清单，为什么它们如此重要？

Full text

Authors of research papers often forget to report specific details about their study, which are important for readers, journal editors and peer reviewers to know. This can have implications such as delaying publication and preventing their work from being cited or replicated by other researchers. The purpose of this short editorial is to highlight the role of publication reporting checklists, discuss the importance of completing these checklists and citing these when submitting a paper to a journal and disseminating findings.

Every research study, literature review, case study, quality improvement or service evaluation project should start with a clear plan. This plan is called a protocol. The protocol should clearly outline the rationale for doing the study/project, what the aims/objectives are, what will be done, how it will be done, how data will be collected, collated and analysed and a plan for dissemination and implementation of the results. By way of an example, protocol development for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is usually guided by the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist.1 The SPIRIT checklist is a 33 item checklist that makes recommendations on how a study should be planned and conducted.1 However, even if studies are well planned and conducted, if poorly reported (without transparency), interpretation of the results may be questioned. As a result, the results generated from such research studies are wasted.2

Reporting guidelines and checklists have been developed for a wide variety of research types and study designs such as RCTs, observational studies, quality improvement projects, qualitative research, surveys, Delphi studies and systematic reviews.3 These guidelines and checklists significantly enhance the quality, transparency and consistency of manuscripts. Research that is well reported, and in accordance with the appropriate checklist allows readers, other researchers and reviewers to fully understand how the study was conducted, and will allow researchers to replicate your study if they desire.4 However, reporting research findings in a transparent manner is also important as an ethical obligation.5 Reporting checklists can serve as a tool to ensure transparency in reporting in a way that is ethically sound.

Reporting checklists are designed to make it easy for researchers and authors to follow and should be used when planning and also when writing their manuscripts. Some academic journals now require authors to submit the completed checklist of an appropriate reporting guideline for the respective study design at submission, indicating where in the manuscript each item has been addressed.6 Although currently not mandatory in Nursing in Critical Care, it is an important consideration for the future and is already strongly encouraged in our author guidelines. Indeed, in this issue of Nursing in Critical Care, at least four articles made explicit reference to a reporting checklist.7-10

It is important to note that the completion of these checklists is not a ‘tick box’ exercise and should be given time and consideration to ensure they are completed correctly. Many claim that the standard of reporting trials and studies remains suboptimal, even at times when a completed checklist has been used.11 While the reason for this is unclear, it could be due to the difficulty in interpreting some of the items outlined in the checklist or because they can be viewed as bureaucratic and not given considerable thought.11 Researchers should dedicate time to completing these reporting checklists correctly and be familiar with the accompanying guidelines. Furthermore, it is suggested that critical care nursing education programmes at the postgraduate level should incorporate training and education on these checklists to prepare students for the writing up and dissemination phase of their research. While research education at the postgraduate level always encompasses the planning, design and execution phase of studies, it could be argued that more attention could be given to the communication and dissemination phase to support nurses to publish their findings in high-quality peer reviewed academic journals for the wider community to see, read, cite and even replicate. These checklists should not be viewed as a burdensome administrative task, but a means to enhance the quality of the manuscript and help to ensure a more streamlined peer review process.12

The use of reporting guidelines and checklists is also helpful to peer reviewers.13 Reviewers can refer to the checklist to ensure key methodological principles are adhered to, which can facilitate the review process in a systematic and timely manner. By adhering to these checklists, the likelihood of acceptance to a journal is increased, and the peer review process is facilitated and accelerated. Many research papers submitted to academic journals are rejected on the basis of poor or unclear methodology.12 However, this may not always be because the study was poorly planned or conducted, but as a result of how the study is reported.12 Indeed, the function of these reporting guidelines and checklists is to prompt researchers and to remind them of what information should be included in the manuscript, not to tell them how to do research.4

So where does one find out which reporting checklist should be used? There are freely available online tools available to support researchers in choosing the appropriate checklist based on study design and type of research being conducted (https://www.goodreports.org/). The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network was established to serve as an international initiative dedicated to improving the reliability of published health research. Their website contains a collection of online resources, including a list of all the major health research reporting guidelines and checklists for varying research designs.14 Further information and resources are available on the EQUATOR Network website.3 Researchers should consult this website in the planning and reporting stages of their research studies to ensure that they are using the appropriate checklist for their research.

Some of the more commonly used reporting checklists used in health research that may help when submitting to Nursing in Critical Care will now be presented. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guideline15 was designed to improve the reporting of RCTs. This is one of the more widely recognized and commonly used reporting checklists in the literature. It is well understood that RCTs, when well designed, conducted and reported, are the gold standard in research. Conversely, RCTs that lack methodological rigour can yield poor quality, biased and unreliable results.16 One further problem that can arise from a poorly reported RCT lacking methodological rigour is that this can have a knock-on effect on the results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. If the data presented in an RCT is poor then the conclusions and recommendations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that incorporate these RCTs cannot be trusted.16 By applying the reporting guidelines and accompanying checklist, the quality and transparency of RCTs can be enhanced, thus leading to systematic reviews and meta-analyses that provide high-quality synthesis of the available literature to inform clinical practice.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses17 (formerly known as QUOROM) were research studies in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The checklist consists of 27 items that are recommended to be reported.17 For observational research studies, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines have been developed.18 The updated STROBE checklist consists of 22 items that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of research papers.18 Other guidelines of interest for authors preparing a manuscript for Nursing in Critical Care are the Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies,19 the standards for reporting E-surveys (CHERRIES),20 the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research,17 the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence for quality initiative/service evaluation papers21 and the Consensus-based Clinical Case Reporting Guidelines for reporting case studies.22 There are many reporting guidelines available to authors and it is not possible to mention all of these within this short editorial. Indeed, at the time of writing, almost 500 were listed on the EQUATOR Network website.3

In summary, authors should always check the reporting guidelines for their study or project type before writing a manuscript for an empirical study, literature review, quality initiative project or case report. The primary goal of reporting checklists is to help researchers to write manuscripts to a high standard that can ultimately help other researchers when conducting their own research studies. Nursing education programmes with a focus on research education should provide nurses with the skills needed to not only plan and conduct studies, but also how to report the findings of their research to the wider community so that other researchers and readers can easily understand the information that is presented and to potentially cite and replicate the research.

全文翻译（仅供参考）

  研究论文的作者经常忘记报告有关其研究的具体细节，而这些细节对读者、期刊编辑和同行评审员来说是很重要的。这可能会产生一些影响，如延迟发表，并使他们的工作无法被其他研究人员引用或复制。这篇短文的目的是强调出版报告清单的作用，讨论完成这些清单的重要性，并在向期刊提交论文和传播研究结果时引用这些清单。

  每一项研究、文献综述、案例研究、质量改进或服务评估项目都应该以一个明确的计划开始。这个计划被称为协议。方案应该清楚地概述进行研究/项目的理由、目的/目标是什么、将做什么、如何做、如何收集、整理和分析数据以及传播和实施结果的计划。举例来说，随机对照试验（RCTs）的方案制定通常以《标准方案项目》为指导。SPIRIT核对表是一个33个项目的核对表，对如何计划和开展研究提出了建议。然而，即使研究计划和开展得很好，如果报告得不好（没有透明度），对结果的解释可能会受到质疑。因此，这类研究产生的结果被浪费了。

已经为各种研究类型和研究设计制定了报告指南和核对表，如RCTs、观察性研究、质量改进项目、定性研究、调查、德尔菲研究和系统回顾。按照适当的核对表进行良好的研究报告，可以让读者、其他研究人员和审稿人充分了解该研究是如何进行的，并允许研究人员在需要时复制您的研究。

  报告核对表的设计使研究人员和作者易于遵循，在计划和撰写稿件时都应使用。一些学术期刊现在要求作者在投稿时提交针对各自研究设计的适当报告指南的核对表，并说明每项内容在稿件中的位置。尽管目前《危重病护理》没有强制要求，但这是未来的一个重要考虑，我们的作者指南中已经大力鼓励。事实上，在本期《危重病护理》中，至少有四篇文章明确提到了报告清单。

  值得注意的是，完成这些核对表不是一项 "打勾 "的工作，应该给予时间和考虑，以确保它们被正确地完成。许多人声称，即使在使用了完整的核对表的情况下，试验和研究的报告标准仍然不理想。虽然原因不清楚，但可能是由于难以解释核对表中概述的一些项目，或者是因为它们被视为官僚主义，没有得到充分的考虑。此外，建议在研究生阶段的重症监护护理教育课程中加入有关这些核对表的培训和教育，使学生为其研究的写作和传播阶段做好准备。虽然研究生阶段的研究教育总是包括研究的计划、设计和执行阶段，但也可以说，可以更多地关注交流和传播阶段，以支持护士在高质量的同行评审学术期刊上发表他们的研究结果，让更多的人看到、阅读、引用甚至复制。这些核对表不应被视为一项繁重的行政工作，而是提高稿件质量的一种手段，有助于确保更简化的同行评审过程。

  使用报告指南和检查表对同行评审员也有帮助。评审员可以参考检查表，确保关键的方法学原则得到遵守，这可以系统和及时地促进评审过程。通过遵守这些核对表，增加了期刊录用的可能性，并促进和加快了同行评审过程。许多提交给学术期刊的研究论文被拒绝的原因是方法论不完善或不明确。然而，这不一定是因为研究的计划或执行不力，而是因为研究的报告方式。事实上，这些报告指南和检查表的功能是提示研究人员，提醒他们哪些信息应该包含在稿件中，而不是告诉他们如何做研究。

  那么，在哪里可以找到应该使用哪种报告核对表呢？有一些免费的在线工具可以帮助研究人员根据研究设计和所进行的研究类型选择合适的核对表。增强健康研究的质量和透明度（EQUATOR）网络的建立是为了作为一项国际倡议，致力于提高已发表的健康研究的可靠性。他们的网站包含了一系列的在线资源，包括所有主要的健康研究报告指南和针对不同研究设计的检查表。

  现在将介绍一些卫生研究中比较常用的报告核对表，这些核对表在提交《重症监护护理》时可能有所帮助。CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials指南15是为了改善RCTs的报告。这是文献中较广泛认可和常用的报告清单之一。众所周知，RCT如果设计、实施和报告得当，是研究的黄金标准。相反，缺乏方法学严谨性的RCT可能会产生质量差、有偏见和不可靠的结果。缺乏方法学严谨性的不良RCT报告可能产生的另一个问题是，这可能对系统回顾和荟萃分析的结果产生连锁反应。如果RCT的数据很差，那么纳入这些RCT的系统回顾和荟萃分析的结论和建议就不可信。通过应用报告指南和附带的检查表，可以提高RCT的质量和透明度，从而使系统回顾和荟萃分析提供高质量的现有文献综合，为临床实践提供参考。

  系统回顾和荟萃分析的首选报告项目17（以前称为QUOROM）是系统回顾和荟萃分析的研究报告。对于观察性研究，已经制定了加强流行病学观察性研究报告（STROBE）指南18。最新的STROBE清单包括22个项目，涉及研究论文的标题、摘要、介绍、方法、结果和讨论部分18。对于准备《危重症护理》稿件的作者来说，其他的指南还有调查研究报告清单19、电子调查报告标准（CHERRIES）20、定性研究报告标准17、质量改进卓越报告标准（质量倡议/服务评估论文）21和基于共识的临床病例报告指南（病例研究报告）22。事实上，在撰写本文时，EQUATOR网络网站上已经列出了近500条。

  总之，作者在撰写实证研究、文献综述、质量倡议项目或案例报告的稿件之前，应始终检查其研究或项目类型的报告指南。报告核对表的主要目的是帮助研究人员以高标准撰写稿件，最终能帮助其他研究人员进行自己的研究调查。以研究教育为重点的护理教育计划应向护士提供所需的技能，不仅要计划和开展研究，而且要向更广泛的社区报告其研究结果，以便其他研究人员和读者能够轻松理解所提供的信息，并有可能引用和复制该研究。