Editorial peer review is widely regarded as the cornerstone of quality assurance in academic medical scholarship.[1], [2] Aside from its broader purpose of fomenting scientific discourse, peer review serves two instrumental functions: to improve quality of research reporting ("quality improvement") and to aid editors in deciding whether to accept submitted work ("filtering").
Benefits to researchers and developers (R and D) Patient data collected from different sources help research and development to improve quality of research about new diseases and therapies.
This will enable wider use of data and new discoveries, and may also substantially improve quality of research by reducing errors and mistakes (Baggerly and Coombes 2009; Carey and Stodden 2010).
This chapter describes the need for research, particularly applied research, to improve quality of technology used in hospitals.
In addition, quality registers can be used to conduct research, to improve quality of health care, and to manage health care services [ 7].
Adoption of reporting guidelines is associated with improved reporting quality of research [ 8].
Learning from peers improved the quality of research and promoted research-based clinical practice, professional skills including constructive criticism, mutual respect, self-confidence and cross-professional working.
Furthermore, the tool could help researchers to review the available literature and improve areas of methodological concern, thereby improving the quality of research produced from routinely collected health data.
Research in human biospecimens should follow the recommendations from BRISQ (Biospecimen Reporting for Improved Study Quality), which aims at improving the quality of research that uses human tissues subjected to collection, processing, and storage; it is crucial that information on the handling of biospecimens be reported in a thorough, accurate, and standardized manner [ 17].
Research reporting guidelines are specifically intended to standardise and improve the quality of research reporting rather than research conduct, although they might also improve conduct by informing research design.
PRISMA includes the broader effort to improve the reporting of different types of health research and in turn to improve the quality of research used in decision making in healthcare.
