» Articles » PMID: 26899254

Professional Medical Writing Support and the Quality of Randomised Controlled Trial Reporting: a Cross-sectional Study

Overview
Journal BMJ Open
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2016 Feb 23
PMID 26899254
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: Authors may choose to work with professional medical writers when writing up their research for publication. We examined the relationship between medical writing support and the quality and timeliness of reporting of the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Study Sample: Primary reports of RCTs published in BioMed Central journals from 2000 to 16 July 2014, subdivided into those with medical writing support (n=110) and those without medical writing support (n=123).

Main Outcome Measures: Proportion of items that were completely reported from a predefined subset of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist (12 items known to be commonly poorly reported), overall acceptance time (from manuscript submission to editorial acceptance) and quality of written English as assessed by peer reviewers. The effect of funding source and publication year was examined.

Results: The number of articles that completely reported at least 50% of the CONSORT items assessed was higher for those with declared medical writing support (39.1% (43/110 articles); 95% CI 29.9% to 48.9%) than for those without (21.1% (26/123 articles); 95% CI 14.3% to 29.4%). Articles with declared medical writing support were more likely than articles without such support to have acceptable written English (81.1% (43/53 articles); 95% CI 67.6% to 90.1% vs 47.9% (23/48 articles); 95% CI 33.5% to 62.7%). The median time of overall acceptance was longer for articles with declared medical writing support than for those without (167 days (IQR 114.5-231 days) vs 136 days (IQR 77-193 days)).

Conclusions: In this sample of open-access journals, declared professional medical writing support was associated with more complete reporting of clinical trial results and higher quality of written English. Medical writing support may play an important role in raising the quality of clinical trial reporting.

Citing Articles

Insights of Healthcare Professionals into Medical Writing Support at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia.

AlOtaiby S, AlOtaiby F, AlMaghlouth A, AlNassar S Cureus. 2024; 16(4):e59190.

PMID: 38807794 PMC: 11130739. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.59190.


Characteristics of post hoc subgroup analyses of oncology clinical trials: a systematic review.

Alrawabdeh J, Alzubi M, Alzyoud M, Odeh N, Hamadneh Y, Mian H JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2023; 7(6).

PMID: 38006333 PMC: 11025370. DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkad100.


Frequency and Characteristics of Trials Using Medical Writer Support in High-Impact Oncology Journals.

Buck E, Haslam A, Tuia J, Prasad V JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(2):e2254405.

PMID: 36723940 PMC: 9892954. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54405.


Professional Medical Writer Assistance in Oncology Clinical Trials.

Kouzy R, Abi Jaoude J, Mainwaring W, Lin T, Miller A, Jethanandani A Oncologist. 2020; 25(11):e1812-e1815.

PMID: 32885898 PMC: 7648360. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0406.


Professional medical writing support and the quality, ethics and timeliness of clinical trial reporting: a systematic review.

Evuarherhe O, Gattrell W, White R, Winchester C Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019; 4:14.

PMID: 31338209 PMC: 6621980. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-019-0073-7.


References
1.
Rawal B, Deane B . Clinical trial transparency update: an assessment of the disclosure of results of company-sponsored trials associated with new medicines approved in Europe in 2012. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015; 31(7):1431-5. DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2015.1047749. View

2.
Scherer R, Ugarte-Gil C, Schmucker C, Meerpohl J . Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68(7):803-10. PMC: 4458220. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.01.027. View

3.
Battisti W, Wager E, Baltzer L, Bridges D, Cairns A, Carswell C . Good Publication Practice for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research: GPP3. Ann Intern Med. 2015; 163(6):461-4. DOI: 10.7326/M15-0288. View

4.
Chan A, Altman D . Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet. 2005; 365(9465):1159-62. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71879-1. View

5.
Jacobs A, Wager E . European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005; 21(2):317-22. DOI: 10.1185/030079905X25578. View