Published 22 October 2008, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2201
Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2201

Editorials

Research methods and reporting

A new section of the BMJ about how to do and write up research

Nearly 15 years ago Doug Altman, the BMJ’s senior statistical adviser and professor of medical statistics, asked in this journal, "What should we think about researchers who use the wrong techniques (either wilfully or in ignorance), use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions? We should be appalled. Yet numerous studies of the medical literature, in both general and specialist journals, have shown that all of the above phenomena are common."¹

Things may have improved somewhat since then, but we still have much to do. Like most other medical journal editors, we at the BMJ continue to be dismayed by submissions that describe poorly conducted studies and by reports of apparently adequate studies that are so incomplete and confusingly written that they are impossible to appraise. Many of these unsatisfactory articles come from well resourced countries, and we must assume that most of these shortcomings in conduct and reporting of research reflect lack of education and supervision rather than lack of money or integrity. To help fill this gap, the BMJ has launched a new section called research methods and reporting.

The new section will contain "how to" articles—those that discuss the nuts and bolts of doing and writing up research—that will be both actionable and readable.² We welcome articles on all kinds of medical and health services research that will be relevant and useful to BMJ readers—whether that research is quantitative or qualitative, clinical or not. Because this section is for the "how?" of research, the "what, why, when, and who cares?" will usually belong elsewhere. Original studies evaluating ways to conduct and report research (for example, a systematic review evaluating whether a guideline on how to report research has actually improved the quality of reporting) should go to the BMJ’s research section; articles that debate (rather than present) research concepts and discuss translation of research into practice and policy should go to analysis, editorials, or features; and those expressing personal opinions should go to personal view.

The research methods and reporting section will be the place for articles that propose and explain practical and theoretical developments in research methodology—for instance, articles on choosing more meaningful outcomes in clinical trials or incorporating patients’ preferences, on innovative statistical design and analysis, or on combining biomedical and social research methods. The section’s inaugural article is a good example, because it summarises the revised UK Medical Research Council’s guidelines on designing, conducting, evaluating, and implementing complex interventions in health care.³ These guidelines now recommend the use of observational studies as well as randomised trials in health services research, exhort policy makers to commission experimental or high quality non-experimental evaluations when initiatives have uncertain effectiveness, and urge researchers to explain their interventions fully. As Rob Anderson says in an accompanying editorial, "the whole document reflects the general shift in health services research away from just asking, ‘what works?’ towards asking how and why an intervention or public health programme works or fails in different circumstances."⁴

Regarding reporting, this new section will showcase articles on improving the clarity and transparency of reports about research studies, protocols, and results. We are soon to publish the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension statement for improving the reporting of pragmatic trials,⁵ and the revised SQUIRE (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines,⁶ and we hope that this new BMJ section will give these added prominence. To improve BMJ papers’ reporting and increase reviewers’ understanding we ask our research authors to follow such guidelines and to complete the appropriate reporting checklist before external peer review. We do not, however, despite some concerns to the contrary,⁷ use reporting guidelines as critical appraisal tools to evaluate study quality or filter out articles. Our aim is to make research articles so clear that peer reviewers, editors, clinicians, educators, ethicists, policy makers, systematic reviewers, guideline writers, journalists, patients, and the general public can tell what really happened during a study.

Increasingly, research protocols and results are published in places and formats that do not rely on review and publication by journals. Just this month—in its latest update of the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals—the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors gave important support to research reporting outside journals, by confirming that editors should not count the posting of results on clinicaltrials.gov as prior publication as long as it is done within the rules laid down in the Food and Drug Administration Amendment Act.^{8 9} Online trial registration, reporting of results in registries, and sharing of raw research data are all hot topics on which we will welcome practical submissions for the research methods and reporting section.

Cite this as: BMJ 2008;337:a2201

¹ BMJ, London WC1H 9JR

Research methods and reporting, doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655; editorials: doi:10.1136/bmj.a1937

---

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Ccommissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

References

1. Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ 1994;308:283-4.[Free Full Text]
2. BMJ. Research methods and reporting—BMJ resources. http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/types-of-article/research-methods-and-reporting.
3. Craig N, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008;337:a1655.[Free Full Text]
4. Anderson R. New MRC guidance on evaluating complex interventions. BMJ 2008;337:a1937.[Free Full Text]
5. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Altman DG, Gagnier J, Tunis S, Haynes RB, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ (in press).
6. Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, Mooney S. Publication guidelines for improvement studies in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project. BMJ (in press).
7. Editors. Probing STROBE. Epidemiology 2007;18;6:789-90.
8. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. 2008. www.icmje.org/icmje.pdf.
9. Groves T. Mandatory disclosure of trial results for drugs and devices. BMJ 2008;336:170; doi:10.1136/bmj.39469.465139.80.[Free Full Text]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

New MRC guidance on evaluating complex interventions

Rob Anderson
BMJ 2008 337: a1937. [Extract] [Full Text]

Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance

Peter Craig, Paul Dieppe, Sally Macintyre, Susan Michie, Irwin Nazareth, and Mark Petticrew
BMJ 2008 337: a1655. [Full Text]

Mandatory disclosure of trial results for drugs and devices

Trish Groves
BMJ 2008 336: 170. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

The scandal of poor medical research

D G Altman
BMJ 1994 308: 283-284. [Extract] [Full Text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

EQUATOR Network – collated resources for good reporting of health research

Iveta Simera
bmj.com, 28 Oct 2008 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more>>