The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Volume 17, Issue 5 , Pages 637-640 , September 2010

The Elephant in the Room: Quality Control of Endometriosis Data

  • Philippe R. Koninckx, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author: Prof. Philippe R. Koninckx, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, B3000 Leuven Belgium.
    • ,
  • Ronald E. Batt, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo
    • ,
  • Lone Hummelshoj

      Affiliations

    • Endometriosis.org, London, England
    • ,
  • Enda McVeigh, MD

      Affiliations

    • University of Oxford, Oxford, England
    • ,
  • Anastasia Ussia, MD

      Affiliations

    • Gruppo Italo-Belga, Rome, Italy
    • ,
  • John Yeh, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

Received 17 February 2010 ,Accepted 23 April 2010.

References 

  1. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA. 1999;281:1110–1111
  2. Pitkin RM. The importance of the abstract. Obstet Gynecol. 1987;70:267
  3. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA. Can the accuracy of abstracts be improved by providing specific instructions? a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:267–269
  4. Landkroon AP, Euser AM, Veeken H, Hart W, Overbeke AJ. Quality assessment of reviewers' reports using a simple instrument. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:979–985
  5. Sharma S, Harrison JE. Structured abstracts: do they improve the quality of information in abstracts?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:523–530
  6. Nakayama T, Hirai N, Yamazaki S, Naito M. Adoption of structured abstracts by general medical journals and format for a structured abstract. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93:237–242
  7. Cobo E, Selva-O'Callagham A, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Dominguez R, Vilardell M. Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial. PLoS ONE. 2007;2:e332
  8. Gibson M, Spong CY, Simonsen SE, Martin S, Scott JR. Author perception of peer review. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112:646–652
  9. Schroter S, Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Differences in review quality and recommendations for publication between peer reviewers suggested by authors or by editors. JAMA. 2006;295:314–317
  10. Kliewer MA, Freed KS, DeLong DM, Pickhardt PJ, Provenzale JM. Reviewing the reviewers: comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:1731–1735
  11. Pitkin RM, Burmeister LF. Identifying manuscript reviewers: randomized comparison of asking first or just sending. JAMA. 2002;287:2795–2796
  12. Earnshaw JJ, Farndon JR, Guillou PJ, Johnson CD, Murie JA, Murray GD. A comparison of reports from referees chosen by authors or journal editors in the peer review process. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2000;82(4 suppl):133–135
  13. Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D. PEER Investigators. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:240–242
  14. Dellavalle RP, Lundahl K, Freeman SR, Schilling LM. Journals should set a new standard in transparency. Nature. 2007;445:364
  15. Lynch JR, Cunningham MR, Warme WJ, Schaad DC, Wolf FM, Leopold SS. Commercially funded and United States–based research is more likely to be published: good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:1010–1018
  16. Giles J. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process. Nature. 2006;439:252
  17. van RS, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:622–624
  18. Ward LG, Kendrach MG, Price SO. Accuracy of abstracts for original research articles in pharmacy journals. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38:1173–1177
  19. Harris AH, Standard S, Brunning JL, et al. The accuracy of abstracts in psychology journals. J Psychol. 2002;136:141–148
  20. Matarese V. Relationship between quality and editorial leadership of biomedical research journals: a comparative study of Italian and UK journals. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e2512
  21. Meuleman C, D'Hoore A, Van CB, Beks N, D'Hooghe T. Outcome after multidisciplinary CO2 laser laparoscopic excision of deep infiltrating colorectal endometriosis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18:282–289
  22. Signorile PG, Baldi F, Bussani R, D'Armiento M, De FM, Baldi A. Ectopic endometrium in human foetuses is a common event and sustains the theory of müllerianosis in the pathogenesis of endometriosis, a disease that predisposes to cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009;28:49
  23. Batt RE, Hummelshoj L, Chapron C, et al. Ectopic endometrium in the human foetus (müllerianosis) must be interpreted cautiously. Available at: http://www.jeccr.com/content/28/1/49/comments#340634 Accessed May 27, 2009.
  24. Siebers R. How accurate is data in abstracts of research articles?. N Z J Med Lab Sci. 2000;54:22–23
  25. Bernal-Delgado E, Fisher ES. Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm. BMC Med Res Method. 2008;8:14

 The authors have no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

PII: S1553-4650(10)00225-6

doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2010.04.005

The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
Volume 17, Issue 5 , Pages 637-640 , September 2010

Article Tools