For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
3
views
65
references
 Top references
cited by
10
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      262
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      CLARIFY 2021: explanation and elaboration of the Delphi-based guidelines for the reporting of yoga research

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Reporting of yoga research often lacks the detail required for clinical application, study replication, summary research and comparative effectiveness studies.

          Methods

          To improve the transparency of reporting yoga interventions, and building on the development of previous reporting guidelines, a group of international yoga research stakeholders developed the consensus-based CheckList stAndardising the Reporting of Interventions For Yoga (CLARIFY) guidelines.

          Results

          The 21-item CLARIFY checklist outlines the minimum details considered necessary for high-quality reporting of yoga research. This paper provides a detailed explanation of each of the 21 items of the CLARIFY checklist, together with model examples of how to integrate each item into publications of yoga research. The CLARIFY guideline serves as an extension for existing research reporting guidelines, and is flexible for use across all study designs.

          Conclusion

          We strongly encourage the uptake of these reporting guidelines by researchers and journals, to facilitate improvements in the transparency and utility of yoga research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references65

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

          T C Hoffmann, P P Glasziou, I Boutron … (2015)
          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 examples 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.
          Article 0 comments Cited 1999 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique.

            F Hasson, S. Keeney, H. McKenna (2000)
            Consensus methods such as the Delphi survey technique are being employed to help enhance effective decision-making in health and social care. The Delphi survey is a group facilitation technique, which is an iterative multistage process, designed to transform opinion into group consensus. It is a flexible approach, that is used commonly within the health and social sciences, yet little guidance exists to help researchers undertake this method of data collection. This paper aims to provide an understanding of the preparation, action steps and difficulties that are inherent within the Delphi. Used systematically and rigorously, the Delphi can contribute significantly to broadening knowledge within the nursing profession. However, careful thought must be given before using the method; there are key issues surrounding problem identification, researcher skills and data presentation that must be addressed. The paper does not claim to be definitive; it purports to act as a guide for those researchers who wish to exploit the Delphi methodology.
            Article 0 comments Cited 619 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

              David Moher, Sally Hopewell, Kenneth F Schulz … (2012)
              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 examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples 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. Copyright © 2010 Moher et al/Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
              Article 0 comments Cited 461 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMJ Open
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMJ Open
                Journal ID (hwp): bmjopen
                Journal ID (publisher-id): bmjopen
                Title: BMJ Open
                Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                ISSN (Electronic): 2044-6055
                Publication date Collection: 2021
                Publication date (Electronic): 5 August 2021
                Volume: 11
                Issue: 8
                Electronic Location Identifier: e045812
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Integrative Health Research , Maryland University of Integrative Health , Laurel, Maryland, USA
                [2 ] departmentDepartment of Internal and Integrative Medicine, Evang, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Faculty of Medicine , University of Duisburg-Essen , Essen, Germany
                [3 ] departmentDepartment of Sport, Exercise & Rehabilitation , Northumbria University , Newcastle Upon Tyne, Northumberland, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Steffany Moonaz; smoonaz@ 123456muih.edu
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3143-1631
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7441-9256
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3640-8046
                Article
                Publisher ID: bmjopen-2020-045812
                DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045812
                PMC ID: 8344321
                PubMed ID: 34353794
                SO-VID: db0501ca-9d6d-4ac2-ac3f-62a985baf033
                Copyright © © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                Date received : 14 October 2020
                Date accepted : 07 July 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000064, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine;
                Award ID: R24 AT001293
                Categories
                Subject: Complementary Medicine
                Subject: 1506
                Subject: 1685
                Series title: Original research
                Custom metadata
                special-feature unlocked

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Keywords: complementary medicine,protocols & guidelines,clinical trials
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Keywords: complementary medicine, protocols & guidelines, clinical trials

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content262

                See all similar

                Cited by10

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors698

                See all reference authors