Nous avons présenté un excellent travail montrant 'efficacité du peer review dans nos comptes rendus du congrès de Chicago (septembre 2013). Nous attendions la publication, et elle a été mise en ligne par TheBmj le 1 juillet 2014 avec le titre ci-dessous. Félicitons Isabelle Boutron pour sa collaboration à ce travail. L'article contient un peu plus de données que la présentation orale à Chicago, normal ! La méthode est originale, car il s'agissait de comparer des manuscrits avant et après peer-review.
Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study
What is already known on this topic
Despite the widespread use of peer review little is known about its impact on the quality of reporting of published research articles
Inadequacies in the methodology and reporting of research is widely recognised
Substantial uncertainty exists about the peer review process as a mechanism to improve reporting of the scientific literature
What this study adds
Peer reviewers often fail to detect important deficiencies in the reporting of the methods and results of randomised trials
Peer reviewers requested relatively few changes for reporting of trial methods and results
Most requests had a positive impact on reporting but in some instances the requested changes could have a negative impact
Et ci-dessous les résultats du résumé :
Of the 93 trial reports, 38% (n=35) did not describe the method of random sequence generation, 54% (n=50) concealment of allocation sequence, 50% (n=46) whether the study was blinded, 34% (n=32) the sample size calculation, 35% (n=33) specification of primary and secondary outcomes, 55% (n=51) results for the primary outcome, and 90% (n=84) details of the trial protocol. The number of changes between manuscript versions was relatively small; most involved adding new information or altering existing information. Most changes requested by peer reviewers had a positive impact on the reporting of the final manuscript—for example, adding or clarifying randomisation and blinding (n=27), sample size (n=15), primary and secondary outcomes (n=16), results for primary or secondary outcomes (n=14), and toning down conclusions to reflect the results (n=27). Some changes requested by peer reviewers, however, had a negative impact, such as adding additional unplanned analyses (n=15).