A new stick in the bunch of reporting guidelines

Field: Medicine (Health Sciences)

Retrospective researches and databases continue to be an important data source for outcomes research. However, they also have some methodological challenges and limitations, which are addressed in the newest publication “A Checklist for Administrative and Research Databases related Studies: ChARDS” released by Ullah W et al. in Artificial Organs.1 ChARDS checklist has 57 questions, divided in the form of 8 major sections and 19 subheadings that can generally be applied to all analyses based on data obtained from databases. It is proposed to guide authors and reviewers as they evaluate a manuscript, including the database, methodology, and conclusions. The ChARDS checklist questions cover a wide range of considerations, including relevance, reliability, validity, data linkages, eligibility, research design, treatment effects, sample selection, censoring, variable definitions, resource valuation, statistical analysis, generalizability, and interpretation. A similar previous checklist, published as, “A checklist for retrospective database studies—report of the ISPOR Task Force on Retrospective Databases,” was released by Motheral et al. in 2003.2 It was developed primarily for medical claims or encounter-based databases. Although the idea behind this previous checklist was important, it was not as widely adopted as those of the EQATOR network, such as CONSORT, STROBE, or CHEERS.3 This may have been influenced by the lower tier quality of retrospective studies compared to prospective studies or randomized trials, though it should be noted that large registries provide large samples of reliable and clinically important data, such as the Registry of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO), from which significant and impactful conclusions can be drawn. In summary, the ChARDS (Checklist for Administrative and Research Databases related Studies) initiative is both important and may be considered for integration into research practices. We believe that the ChARDS checklist expands the findings of the previous checklists and might be more useful and complete. While the ISPOR checklist comprised 27 questions that were primarily designed to guide decision-makers, the ChARDS checklist has 57 questions that can serve as a step-by-step guide for authors on how to choose, analyze and report findings from retrospective databases. ChARDS should also help authors to understand that a solid stable database is an indispensable foundation for any kind of statistical analysis or predictive modeling and that it can help reviewers and authors evaluate data reliability and validity. Finally, the checklist may guide retrospective studies by enabling a more careful and systematic approach, thus improving study quality. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Prof. Dr. Lorusso is a consultant for Medtronic, Getinge, and LivaNova and the medical advisory board member for EUROSETS, all unrelated to this work; all honoraria to the university for research. Dr. Tonna received speaker fees and travel compensation from LivaNova and Philips Healthcare, unrelated to this work. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests. Dr. Tonna is supported by a Career Development Award from the National Institutes of Health/ National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute (K23 HL141596).