The Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology (RCA) welcomes the Declaration of Transparency and Guidelines for the publication or articles, including CARE, for case reports

La Revista Colombiana de Anestesiología (RCA) acoge la Declaración de transparencia y lineamientos para publicación de artículos, entre ellos CARE, para reporte de caso

Javier Eslava-Schmalbacha^a,*, Oscar Gilberto Gómez-Duarte^b

^a Editor in Chief, Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology, Professor, School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia
^b Member of the Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology Editorial Committee, Assistant Professor Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

Corresponding author at: Carrera 15 A No. 120 - 74 Piso 4, Bogotá, Colombia. E-mail address: jheslavas@unal.edu.co (J. Eslava-Schmalbach).

The purpose of science to discover and to generate new knowledge is based on hypothesis that through meticulous studies may prove to be true or false. Hence, most of the scientific writings provide the essentials for the reader to understand the trial, assess its quality and learn something new. Some core characteristics of scientific writing are the description of the problem, the objectives of the trial, the hypothesis subject to evaluation, any methodology required to accomplish the results and the discussion of those results to conclude whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected. Structuring the written text according to these parameters allows for greater clarity, transparency and honesty on behalf of the peer reviewers and a genuine contribution to the scientific community.

Problem

Articles published in scientific journals exhibit different types of errors and the most common one is omission of information. This oversight may impact every section of the manuscript (title, summary, introduction, methods, results, discussion and references) as well as all kinds of studies (meta-analysis, cases and controls, cohorts, random control trials, among others).^1-4 The shortage of information hinders the reader’s ability to establish the relevance of the trial, the objectivity in data collection, the unbiased data analysis and the power of the conclusions. The poor quality of reporting of diagnostic studies has been established through some tools such as QUADAS and STARD standards.² Omitting information in articles may be due to various causes; some are derived from inconsistent results, from contradictory data leading authors to report only those results that match the original hypothesis. In some cases, scientific fraud is the reason for the omission of information, for manipulation of information or plagiarism. Some fraud examples have been evidenced in scientific journals, including anesthesiology publications, forcing the editors to withdraw those articles.^5,6

Objective

One of the objectives of scientific journals is to encourage the author to adhere strictly to the values of professional ethics, transparency and honesty. Information about these core values of scientific literature is crucial when educating students and future basic and clinical science researchers. Disseminating information on ethics and responsible scientific writing is an absolute requirement for Universities, not only for undergraduate students, but also for professional researchers. Consequently, the Colombian Journal of Anesthe-siology (RCA) wants to make sure the manuscripts submitted for publication report all the necessary data so that the readers and peer reviewers have all the necessary elements of judgement to assess the quality of the study, to weigh its strengths and weaknesses and to clearly determine its relevance.

Methods and standard formats to enhance accuracy and transparency

With the intention of improving the quality of the articles and to prevent scientific fraud, the RCA journal has been publishing articles on the topic of scientific writing, discussing issues such as plagiarism,^7,8 systematic/random error and fraud,⁹ disclosure of conflict of interests¹⁰ and the use of standardised guidelines for the submission of scientific articles.¹¹ Additionally, since 2010 the RCA joined the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and so the protocols of articles on human experiments should have been previously published in a registry database of clinical trials protocols.¹²

As of this issue the RCA adopts the guidelines of the EQUATOR network (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research, available at http://www.equator-network.org). The RCA invites readers and researchers interested in publishing their papers in this journal to consult these guidelines. Following these guidelines will result in information better presented, avoiding omissions of essential information and facilitating the job of peer reviewers. The guidelines that recommend a minimum number of elements that should be in the scientific manuscripts will enable more accuracy in writing, as Donald Miller mentioned in an editorial published in this journal.¹¹ These guides or formats are not intended to be a compulsory mandate limiting creativity, innovation and free thinking which are so important to the researcher. The list of guidelines that follow is useful, just not only to publish in the RCA, but also to publish in scientiic journals that have also adopted these guidelines:

CONSORT: Experimental studies, including randomised trials: CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials^13,14

STROBE: Observational studies: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies⁴

STARD: Diagnostic accuracy studies: Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy¹⁵

PRISMA: Systematic reviews: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement¹⁶

COREQ & ENTRQ: Qualitative research: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus group & Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ^17,18

CHEERS: Economic evaluations: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Statement¹⁹

SQUIRE: Quality improvement studies: Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE Project²⁰

CARE: Case Reports: The CARE Guidelines: Consensus-based Clinical Case Reporting Guideline Development²¹

With regards to CARE, the RCA also seeks to improve the quality of clinical case reports. To that end, the following table and amended CARE-2013 verification list recently adopted by other global journals (Table 1) is submitted. Such a list discloses elements that are necessary to better explain the problem that embraces the trial and potential solution. The RCA-adopted guidelines shall be taken as an opportunity to improve the qualityand quantityofdocumentaryinformation and to simultaneously evaluate any weaknesses and strengths of the trial submitted.

Although references of the original sources are attached for the various types of articles, in the above list access through EQUATOR (http://www.equator-network.org) will be more valuable for the reader and reviewer since those are all the consolidated versions, in addition to a dynamic rendering of the update processes thereof. Thus, our recommendation is to consult the network prior to submitting the articles to the journal. These guidelines have been included in the instructions for RCA authors.

Transparency statement

As of 2014 the RCA requires that any new submissions should have signed the declaration of transparency by the principal author of the article. This new requirement for all manuscripts, approved by RCA's editorial committee, is aimed at allowing the author to confirm the transparency of the information The RCA adopts the declaration of transparency as a proposal written and accepted by other global journals.²² The text of the declaration of transparency reads as follows²²:

Transparency declaration

The lead author* affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported such that no important aspects of the study have been omitted, and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained. *The manuscript's guarantor.

These guidelines for the publication of scientific articles on each of the subjects discussed in the Journal and in compliance with the declaration of transparency are expected to improve the quality of the scientific articles published in the RCA. Furthermore, it is the intent of the journal to expand on key information for the reader to have all the necessary parameters to assess the quality of work, to limit the number of omissions and biases, and to prevent fraud. In accordance with these guidelines, the RCA is committed to publishing articles that are consistent with the ethical and transparency values of scientific writing, for the benefit of readers, authors and the scientific community as a whole.

Funding: None.

Conflicts of interest: None.

5. A Medical Madoff: Anesthesiologist Faked Data in 21 Studies: Scientific American Internet consultado 11 Nov 2013. Disponible en: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=amedical-madoff-anesthestesiologist-faked-data        [ Links ]

6. Kranke P, Apfel CC, Roewer N. et al. Reported data on granisetron and postoperative nausea and vomiting by Fujii are incredibly nice! Anesth Analg. 2000;90:1004.         [ Links ]

7. González Sandoval DC. Plagio: una problemática de la mente humana. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2011;39:271-2.         [ Links ]

8. Aldrete JA. Plagio y otros traspasos literario-científicos en medicina y particularmente en anestesiología. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2011;39:217-29.         [ Links ]

9. Eslava-Schmalbach J, Escobar-Córdoba F. Error aleatorio, sesgo y fraude en las publicaciones científicas. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2012;40:91-4.         [ Links ]

10. Mahajan RP. Conflicts of interest in medical journals. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2013;41:179-81.         [ Links ]

11. Miller DR. Hacia una mayor transparencia y exactitud de los reportes científicos en las revistas biomédicas. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2012;40:1-3.         [ Links ]

12. Reveiz L, Cuervo LG. Implementing the Clinical Trials Registry Initiative. Rev Colomb Anestesiol. 2011;39:21-6.         [ Links ]

16. 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.         [ Links ]

17. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12: 181.         [ Links ]