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

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. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

On the Need to Develop Guidelines for Characterizing and Reporting Intrinsic Disorder in Proteins

Since the early 2000s, numerous computational tools have been created and used to predict intrinsic disorder in proteins. At present, the output from these algorithms is difficult to interpret in the absence of standards or references for comparison. There are many reasons to establish a set of standard‐based guidelines to evaluate computational protein disorder predictions. This viewpoint explores a handful of these reasons, including standardizing nomenclature to improve communication, rigor and reproducibility, and making it easier for newcomers to enter the field. An approach for reporting predicted disorder in single proteins with respect to whole proteomes is discussed. The suggestions are not intended to be formulaic; they should be viewed as a starting point to establish guidelines for interpreting and reporting computational protein disorder predictions.     

Impact of Registered Dietitian Expertise in Health Guidance for Weight Loss

Background & Objectives

Expertise of registered dietitians (RDs) is important for health guidance but has been poorly evaluated. We evaluated the kind of RD expertise that would improve their skills.

Design, Setting, Participants, Measurements

This study was a post-hoc analysis of our randomized controlled trial, which compared the weight change between participants using the web-based self-disclosure health support and those using the email health support. Healthy men and women aged 35–64 years with a body mass index (BMI) of > = 24.5 kg/m² were recruited for this study. We evaluated the relationship of RD expertise indicators including the duration of working as an RD, the experience of health counseling, and membership in the Japan Dietetic Association (JDA) with the weight loss of study participants. The primary endpoint was the change in body weight. Comparison of changes in body weight by the RD expertise indicators was evaluated using analysis of covariance.

Results

A total of 175 participants were eligible for analyses. Changes in body weight were significantly greater when they were supported by the RDs in the routine counseling group than when supported by the RDs in the non-routine counseling group (-1.8 kg versus -0.4 kg, fully adjusted P = 0.0089). Duration of working as an RD and JDA membership did not significantly affect changes in body weight.

Conclusions

Among some indices of RD experience, the experience of providing routine experience of health counseling was associated with weight loss.     

Energy Storage Data Reporting in Perspective—Guidelines for Interpreting the Performance of Electrochemical Energy Storage Systems

Due to the tremendous importance of electrochemical energy storage, numerous new materials and electrode architectures for batteries and supercapacitors have emerged in recent years. Correctly characterizing these systems requires considerable time, effort, and experience to ensure proper metrics are reported. Many new nanomaterials show electrochemical behavior somewhere in between conventional double‐layer capacitor and battery electrode materials, making their characterization a non‐straightforward task. It is understandable that some researchers may be misinformed about how to rigorously characterize their materials and devices, which can result in inflation of their reported data. This is not uncommon considering the current state of the field nearly requires record breaking performance for publication in high‐impact journals. Incorrect characterization and data reporting misleads both the materials and device development communities, and it is the shared responsibility of the community to follow rigorous reporting methodologies to ensure published results are reliable to ensure constructive progress. This tutorial aims to clarify the main causes of inaccurate data reporting and to give examples of how researchers should proceed. The best practices for measuring and reporting metrics such as capacitance, capacity, coulombic and energy efficiencies, electrochemical impedance, and the energy and power densities of capacitive and pseudocapacitive materials are discussed.