Inconsistent Survey Reporting in Anesthesia Journals

BACKGROUND: As with other types of research, there are concerns about reporting of survey research in anesthesia journals. We hypothesized that use of survey reporting items would be inconsistent in survey research reported in anesthesia journals. METHODS: After a literature review we constructed a 17-item reporting list for a limited systematic review of survey reporting in 6 anesthesia journals. We identified survey reports by MEDLINE (PubMed) search for January 2000 to April 2009. RESULTS: The initial search identified 347 publications. Of these, we excluded 107 because they were not questionnaire surveys (often audits), were reviews, or were letters. We therefore identified 240 surveys published as full survey reports. From the 17-item reporting list, the median number of items recorded was 9 (interquartile range: 7 to 10; range 2 to 15). The number (and percentage) of surveys reporting specific items ranged widely for different items: from 9 surveys (4%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2% to 7%) for sample size to 240 surveys (100%; 95% CI: 98% to 100%) for response rate. In addition to sample size, the 5 least frequently reported items included the following: reporting confidence intervals, 21 surveys (9%; 95% CI: 6% to 13%); stating a hypothesis, 23 of 240 surveys (10%; 95% CI: 7% to 14%); accounting for nonresponders, 61 surveys (25%; 95% CI: 20% to 31%); and survey design, 67 surveys (28%; 95% CI: 33% to 34%). CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent reporting may compromise the transparency and reproducibility of survey reports. (Anesth Analg 2011; 113: 591-5)