Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Volume 19, Issue 2 , Page 165, March 2010

Levels of evidence and standardizing the reporting of research

  • John E. Kuhn, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: John E. Kuhn, MD, 3200 MCE South Tower, 1215 21st Ave S, Nashville, TN 37232.

Associate Editor for Evidence-Based Medicine, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

Article Outline

 

Evidence-based medicine asks us to treat our patients as we always have, using our experience and the patient's individual needs to make treatment decisions, but we are also asked to understand that the literature that influences our decisions has different levels of evidence and we should use the best available evidence when making these decisions.

To help our readers interpret the literature and weigh its validity, the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery has been including a description of the type of study and its level of evidence. These levels of evidence and how they are determined are now included in the “Information for Authors” on the Journal's Web site (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623149/authorinstructions).

In addition, like many other medical journals, the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery suggests that authors consider following specific guidelines in the preparation of their manuscripts. These guidelines serve many purposes: they allow for conformity of reporting methods, to help readers evaluate a study, and they also provide a format for reporting data, to help with inclusion of the work in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery recommends using the following guidelines: CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for randomized trials (www.consort-statement.org)1, 2, 4; STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) for case reports, case series, and cross-sectional and other observational studies (http://www.strobe-statement.org)5, 6; and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses (http://www.prisma-statement.org).3 It is our hope that by following these guidelines, the manuscripts published in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery will be more complete, will be easier to interpret, and will allow for the inclusion of the data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Altman DG. Better reporting of randomised controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 1996;313:570–571
  2. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637–639
  3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097
  4. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1987–1991
  5. STROBE Statement. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology. March 30, 2008. Available from: URL: http://www.strobe-statement.org/News%20Archive.html. Accessed October 26, 2009.
  6. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. STROBE Initiative. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370:1453–1457

PII: S1058-2746(09)00540-0

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2009.11.048

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Volume 19, Issue 2 , Page 165, March 2010

Article Tools