ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5263-6241
Current Organisation
Université de Paris
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 22-01-2008
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 05-2015
DOI: 10.1111/JEBM.12155
Abstract: Testing Treatments is a book written to help everyone understand why testing treatments is so important, why treatment tests have to be fair, and how everyone can help to promote better research for better health care. The book proved to be very popular and its second edition has already been translated into a dozen languages, with more translations in the pipeline. The texts of the original English and all the translations are feely downloadable from Testing Treatments interactive at www.testingtreatments.org. The editors of all the different language websites have established an TTi Editorial Alliance, to share experiences and provide each other with mutual support. The TTi Editorial Alliance seeks to promote a world in which health professionals, patients and the public use reliable research to inform their health decisions. Its missions are (i) To promote a global network, involving members of the public in partnership with professionals, to communicate and discuss basic principles and general knowledge about testing treatments (ii) to help the public increase critical thinking and skills in accessing, apprehending, appraising and using research evidence and (iii) to help patients and the public to participate more actively in health research.
Publisher: The Journal of Rheumatology
Date: 12-2013
Abstract: For rheumatology research to have a real influence on health and well-being, evidence must be tailored to inform the decisions of various audiences. The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. While systematic reviews provided by the CMSG fill a major gap in meeting the need for high-quality evidence syntheses, our work does not end at the completion of a review. The term “knowledge translation” (KT) refers to the activities involved in bringing research evidence to various audiences in a useful form so it can be used to support decision making and improve practices. Systematic reviews give careful consideration to research methods and analysis. Because the review is often long and detailed, the clinically relevant results may not be apparent or in the optimal form for use by patients and their healthcare practitioners. This paper describes 10 formats, many of them new, for ways that evidence from Cochrane Reviews can be translated with the intention of meeting the needs of various audiences, including patients and their families, practitioners, policy makers, the press, and members of the public (the “5 Ps”). Current and future knowledge tools include summary of findings tables, patient decision aids, plain language summaries, press releases, clinical scenarios in general medical journals, frequently asked questions (Cochrane Clinical Answers), podcasts, Twitter messages, Journal Club materials, and the use of storytelling and narratives to support continuing medical education. Future plans are outlined to explore ways of improving the influence and usefulness of systematic reviews by providing results in formats suitable to our varied audiences.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 29-03-2021
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 2012
DOI: 10.1016/J.IJSU.2011.10.001
Abstract: Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing ex les of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several ex les of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 2011
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 19-01-2009
DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.A3152
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2016
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 16-12-2016
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 06-2010
Abstract: The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) were published in five journals in 2001 and 2002. These guidelines, in the form of a checklist and explanations for use by authors and journal editors, were designed to improve reporting of acupuncture trials, particularly the interventions, thereby facilitating their interpretation and replication. Subsequent reviews of the application and impact of STRICTA have highlighted the value of STRICTA as well as scope for improvements and revision. To manage the revision process a collaboration between the STRICTA Group, the CONSORT Group and the Chinese Cochrane Centre was developed in 2008. An expert panel with 47 participants was convened that provided electronic feedback on a revised draft of the checklist. At a subsequent face-to-face meeting in Freiburg, a group of 21 participants further revised the STRICTA checklist and planned dissemination. The new STRICTA checklist, which is an official extension of CONSORT, includes 6 items and 17 subitems. These set out reporting guidelines for the acupuncture rationale, the details of needling, the treatment regimen, other components of treatment, the practitioner background and the control or comparator interventions. In addition, and as part of this revision process, the explanations for each item have been elaborated, and ex les of good reporting for each item are provided. In addition, the word ‘controlled’ in STRICTA is replaced by ‘clinical’, to indicate that STRICTA is applicable to a broad range of clinical evaluation designs, including uncontrolled outcome studies and case reports. It is intended that the revised STRICTA checklist, in conjunction with both the main CONSORT statement and extension for non-pharmacological treatment, will raise the quality of reporting of clinical trials of acupuncture.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 17-08-2017
DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.J3751
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 12-2015
DOI: 10.1373/CLINCHEM.2015.246280
Abstract: Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
Publisher: Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)
Date: 12-2015
DOI: 10.1148/RADIOL.2015151516
Abstract: Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
Publisher: Mary Ann Liebert Inc
Date: 10-2010
Abstract: The Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) were published in five journals in 2001 and 2002. These guidelines, in the form of a checklist and explanations for use by authors and journal editors, were designed to improve reporting of acupuncture trials, particularly the interventions, thereby facilitating their interpretation and replication. Subsequent reviews of the application and impact of STRICTA have highlighted the value of STRICTA as well as scope for improvements and revision. To manage the revision process a collaboration between the STRICTA Group, the CONSORT Group, and the Chinese Cochrane Centre was developed in 2008. An expert panel with 47 participants was convened that provided electronic feedback on a revised draft of the checklist. At a subsequent face-to-face meeting in Freiburg, a group of 21 participants further revised the STRICTA checklist and planned dissemination. The new STRICTA checklist, which is an official extension of CONSORT, includes six items and 17 sub-items. These set out reporting guidelines for the acupuncture rationale, the details of needling, the treatment regimen, other components of treatment, the practitioner background, and the control or comparator interventions. In addition, and as part of this revision process, the explanations for each item have been elaborated, and ex les of good reporting for each item are provided. In addition, the word "controlled" in STRICTA is replaced by "clinical," to indicate that STRICTA is applicable to a broad range of clinical evaluation designs, including uncontrolled outcome studies and case reports. It is intended that the revised STRICTA, in conjunction with both the main CONSORT Statement and extension for nonpharmacologic treatment, will raise the quality of reporting of clinical trials of acupuncture.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 08-06-2010
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2014
Publisher: Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Date: 29-01-2016
Abstract: Nur wenn Interventionsbeschreibungen vollständig veröffentlicht sind, können Kliniker und Patienten Interventionen, die sich als nützlich erwiesen haben, verlässlich umsetzen und andere Forscher die Studienergebnisse replizieren oder darauf aufbauen. Die Qualität von Interventionsbeschreibungen in wissenschaftlichen Publikationen ist bemerkenswert gering. Um die Vollständigkeit der Berichterstattung und damit die Replizierbarkeit von Interventionen zu verbessern, entwickelte eine internationale Gruppe von Experten und Interessensvertretern die Checkliste zur Interventionsbeschreibung und Replikation (TIDieR). Der Prozess beinhaltete eine Literaturrecherche zu relevanten Checklisten und wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen, eine Delphi-Umfrage mit internationalen Experten zur Steuerung der Item-Auswahl und eine Expertenkonferenz. Die daraus resultierende 12-Item-TIDieR Checkliste (Bezeichnung, Warum, Was (Materialien), Was (Verfahren), Wer intervenierte, Wie, Wo, Wann und Wieviel, Anpassungen, Modifikationen, Wie gut (geplante Durchführungskontrolle), Wie gut (tatsächliche Durchführung)) ist eine Erweiterung des CONSORT 2010 Statements (Item 5) und des SPIRIT 2013 Statements (Item 11). Während der Fokus der Checkliste auf klinischen Studien liegt, kann die erweiterte Anleitung bei allen evaluativen Studiendesigns herangezogen werden. Dieser Artikel präsentiert die TIDieR Checkliste und Anleitung mit Erklärung und Erläuterung jedes einzelnen Items sowie Beispielen guter Berichterstattung. Die TIDieR Checkliste und Anleitung sollen das Berichten von Interventionen verbessern und Autoren eine Hilfe bieten, die Berichterstattung ihrer Interventionen zu strukturieren, Gutachtern und Herausgebern, die Beschreibungen zu beurteilen und Lesern, die Informationen zu nutzen.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 07-03-2014
DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.G1687
Abstract: Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and ex les of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2009
Publisher: American College of Physicians
Date: 08-2022
DOI: 10.7326/M22-0514
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 28-10-2015
DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.H5527
Publisher: Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine Press
Date: 15-07-2010
DOI: 10.3736/JCIM20100702
Abstract: The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. To encourage dissemination of the CONSORT 2010 Statement, this article is freely accessible on bmj.com and will also be published in the Lancet, Obstetrics and Gynecology, PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, Open Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, BMC Medicine, and Trials.
Publisher: The Journal of Rheumatology
Date: 12-2013
Abstract: The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.
Publisher: American College of Physicians
Date: 04-11-2008
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00009
Abstract: In 2005, draft guidelines were published for reporting studies of quality improvement as the initial step in a consensus process for development of a more definitive version. The current article contains the revised version, which we refer to as Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE). This narrative progress report summarizes the special features of improvement that are reflected in SQUIRE and describes major differences between SQUIRE and the initial draft guidelines. It also explains the development process, which included formulation of responses to informal feedback, written commentaries, and input from publication guideline developers ongoing review of the literature on the epistemology of improvement and methods for evaluating complex social programs and a meeting of stakeholders for critical review of the guidelines' content and wording, followed by commentary on sequential versions from an expert consultant group. Finally, the report discusses limitations of and unresolved questions about SQUIRE ancillary supporting documents and alternative versions under development and plans for dissemination, testing, and further development of SQUIRE.
Publisher: American College of Physicians
Date: 20-06-2017
DOI: 10.7326/M17-0046
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 13-08-2010
DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.C3852
Publisher: Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Date: 03-2016
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2021.12.013
Abstract: To describe the bias assessment practice in recently published systematic reviews of mediation studies and to evaluate the quality of different bias assessment tools for mediation analysis proposed in the literature. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews by searching MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (OvidSP), and PubMed databases for systematic reviews of mediation studies published from 2007 to 2020. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstracts, and full texts of the identified reports and extracted the data. The publications of all mediation-specific quality assessment tools used in these reviews were also identified for the evaluation of the tools' development and validation. Among 103 eligible reviews, 24 (23%) reviews did not assess the risk of bias of eligible studies, and 48 (47%) assessed risk of bias using a tool that was not specifically designed to evaluate mediation analysis. 31 (30.1%) reviews assessed the risk of mediation-specific biases, either narratively or by using specific tools for mediation studies. However, none of these tools were consensus-based, rigorously developed or validated. The quality assessment practice in recently published systematic reviews of mediation studies is suboptimal. To improve the quality and consistency of risk of bias assessments for mediation studies, a consensus-based bias assessment tool is needed.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 12-10-2016
DOI: 10.1136/BMJ.I4919
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 08-2010
DOI: 10.1111/J.1756-5391.2010.01086.X
Abstract: The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) were published in five journals in 2001 and 2002. These guidelines, in the form of a checklist and explanations for use by authors and journal editors, were designed to improve reporting of acupuncture trials, particularly the interventions, thereby facilitating their interpretation and replication. Subsequent reviews of the application and impact of STRICTA have highlighted the value of STRICTA as well as scope for improvements and revision. To manage the revision process a collaboration between the STRICTA Group, the CONSORT Group, and the Chinese Cochrane Centre was developed in 2008. An expert panel with 47 participants was convened that provided electronic feedback on a revised draft of the checklist. At a subsequent face-to-face meeting in Freiburg, a group of 21 participants further revised the STRICTA checklist and planned dissemination. The new STRICTA checklist, which is an official extension of CONSORT, includes six items and 17 sub-items. These set out reporting guidelines for the acupuncture rationale, the details of needling, the treatment regimen, other components of treatment, the practitioner background, and the control or comparator interventions. In addition, and as part of this revision process, the explanations for each item have been elaborated, and ex les of good reporting for each item are provided. In addition, the word "controlled" in STRICTA is replaced by "clinical," to indicate that STRICTA is applicable to a broad range of clinical evaluation designs, including uncontrolled outcome studies and case reports. It is intended that the revised STRICTA, in conjunction with both the main CONSORT Statement and extension for nonpharmacologic treatment, will raise the quality of reporting of clinical trials of acupuncture.
No related grants have been discovered for Isabelle Boutron.