Objectives The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far. Design Scoping review. Search strategy We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. Results 109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript. Conclusions This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.

Compulsory submission of a checklist from the relevant reporting guideline is one of the most widespread journal requirements aiming to improve completeness of reporting. However, the current suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines observed in the literature may indicate that this journal policy is not having a significant effect. We explored whether authors provided the appropriate CONSORT checklist extension for their study and whether there were inconsistencies between what authors claimed on the submitted checklist and what was actually reported in the published paper. We randomly selected 12 randomized trials from three journals that provide the originally submitted checklist and analyzed six core CONSORT items. Only one paper used the appropriate checklist extension and had no inconsistencies between what was claimed in the submitted checklist and what was reported in the published paper. Journals should take further actions to take full advantage of the requirement for the submission of fulfilled CONSORT checklists, thus ensuring that these checklists reflect what is reported in the manuscript.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of an editorial intervention to improve completeness of reporting of reports of randomised trials.Design: Randomised controlled trial (RCT).Setting: BMJ Open’s quality improvement programme.Participants: 24 manuscripts describing RCTs.Interventions: We used an R Shiny application to randomise manuscripts (1:1 allocation ratio, blocks of 4) to the intervention (n=12) or control (n=12) group. The intervention was performed by a researcher with expertise in the content of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and consisted of an evaluation of completeness of reporting of eight core CONSORT items using the submitted checklist to locate information, and the production of a report containing specific requests for authors based on the reporting issues found, provided alongside the peer review reports. The control group underwent the usual peer review.Outcomes: The primary outcome is the number of adequately reported items (0–8 scale) in the revised manuscript after the first round of peer review. The main analysis was intention-to-treat (n=24), and we imputed the scores of lost to follow-up manuscripts (rejected after peer review and not resubmitted). The secondary outcome is the proportion of manuscripts where each item was adequately reported. Two blinded reviewers assessed the outcomes independently and in duplicate and solved disagreements by consensus. We also recorded the amount of time to perform the intervention.Results: Manuscripts in the intervention group (mean: 7.01; SD: 1.47) were more completely reported than those in the control group (mean: 5.68; SD: 1.43) (mean difference 1.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.58). We observed the main differences in items 6a (outcomes), 9 (allocation concealment mechanism), 11a (blinding) and 17a (outcomes and estimation). The mean time to perform the intervention was 87 (SD 42) min.Conclusions: We demonstrated the benefit of involving a reporting guideline expert in the editorial process. Improving the completeness of RCTs is essential to enhance their usability.Trial registration number: NCT03751878.

Objective: To test the efficacy of the Athletics Injury Prevention Programme (AIPP) to reduce the percentage of athletes presenting at least one injury complaint leading to participation restriction (ICPR) over an athletics season. Methods: During the 2017–2018 athletics season, we included in this cluster randomised controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03307434) 840 athletes randomly assigned (randomisation unit: athletic clubs) to a control group (regular training) or to an intervention group (regular training plus the AIPP 2/week). Using a weekly online questionnaire, athletes reported the ICPR, training and competition exposures, and, for the intervention group, the compliance with the AIPP. The primary outcome was the percentage of athletes presenting at least one ICPR over the study follow-up. Results: A total of 449 and 391 athletes were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively. From them, 68 (15.1%) and 100 (25.6%) athletes, respectively, provided 100% of the requested information during the follow-up (39 weeks). A total of 6 (8.8%) performed the AIPP 2/week or more. The proportion of athletes who had at least one ICPR over the follow-up period was similar in the intervention (64.7%) and control groups (65.0%), with adjusted odds ratios: 0.81 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.85). There were no between-group differences when comparing separately the subgroups corresponding with the different compliance levels. Conclusion: This cluster randomised controlled trial reported no efficacy of the AIPP. However, the overall response proportion and the compliance with the AIPP in the intervention group were low. In individual sports especially, efforts should be first made to improve the implementation and adoption of interventions.

Objective To develop a tool to assess the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research. Methods We conducted an online survey intended for biomedical editors and authors. The survey aimed to (1) determine if participants endorse the proposed definition of peer-review report quality; (2) identify the most important items to include in the final version of the tool and (3) identify any missing items. Participants rated on a 5-point scale whether an item should be included in the tool and they were also invited to comment on the importance and wording of each item. Principal component analysis was performed to examine items redundancy and a general inductive approach was used for qualitative data analysis. Results A total of 446 biomedical editors and authors participated in the survey. Participants were mainly male (65.9%), middle-aged (mean=50.3, SD=13) and with PhD degrees (56.4%). The majority of participants (84%) agreed on the definition of peer-review report quality we proposed. The 20 initial items included in the survey questionnaire were generally highly rated with a mean score ranging from 3.38 (SD=1.13) to 4.60 (SD=0.69) (scale 1–5). Participants suggested 13 items that were not included in the initial list of items. A steering committee composed of five members with different expertise discussed the selection of items to include in the final version of the tool. The final checklist includes 14 items encompassed in five domains (Importance of the study, Robustness of the study methods, Interpretation and discussion of the study results, Reporting and transparency of the manuscript, Characteristics of peer reviewer’s comments). Conclusion Assessment of Review reports with a Checklist Available to eDItors and Authors tool could be used regularly by editors to evaluate the reviewers’ work, and also as an outcome when evaluating interventions to improve the peer-review process.

Material extrusion based additive manufacturing is used to make three dimensional parts by means of layer-upon-layer deposition. There is a growing variety of polymers that can be processed with material extrusion. Thermoplastic polyurethanes allow manufacturing flexible parts that can be used in soft robotics, wearables and flexible electronics applications. Moreover, these flexible materials also present a certain degree of viscoelasticity. One of the main drawbacks of material extrusion is that decisions related to specific manufacturing configurations, such as the inner-structure design, shall affect the final mechanical behaviour of the flexible part. In this study, the influence of inner-structure design factors upon the viscoelastic relaxation modulus, E(t), of polyurethane parts is firstly analysed. The obtained results indicate that wall thickness has a higher influence upon E(t) than other inner-design factors. Moreover, an inadequate combination of those factors could reduce E(t) to a small fraction of that expected for an equivalent moulded part. Next, a viscoelastic material model is proposed and implemented using finite element modelling. This model is based on a generalized Maxwell model and contemplates the inner-structure design. The results show the viability of this approach to model the mechanical behaviour of parts manufactured with material extrusion additive manufacturing.