Endorsement of reporting guidelines and study registration by endocrine and internal medicine journals: meta-epidemiological study

Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers

Biomedical research reporting guidelines provide a framework by which journal editors and the researchers who conduct studies can ensure that the reported research is both complete and transparent. With more than 16 different guidelines for the 11 major study types of medical and health research, authors need to be familiar with journal reporting standards. To assess the current endorsements of reporting guidelines for biomedical and health research, this study examined the instructions for authors (IFAs) of 559 biomedical journals by 11 prominent publishers that publish original research or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Data from the above original sources were cleaned and restructured, and analyzed in a database and text miner. Each journal's instructions or information for authors were examined to code if any of five prominent reporting guidelines were mentioned and what form the guideline adherence demonstration took. Seventeen journals published the reporting guidelines. Four of the five reporting guidelines listed journals as endorsers. For journals with open peer review reports, a sample of journals and peer reviews was analyzed for mention of adherence to reporting guidelines. The endorsement of research guidelines by publishers and their associated journals is inconsistent for some publishers, with only a small number of journals endorsing relevant guidelines. Based on the analysis of open peer reviews, there is evidence that some reviewers check the adherence to the endorsed reporting guidelines. Currently, there is no universal endorsement of reporting guidelines by publishers nor ways of demonstrating adherence to guidelines. Journals may not directly inform authors of their guideline endorsements, making it more difficult for authors to adhere to endorsed guidelines. Suggestions derived from the findings are provided for authors, journals, and reporting guidelines to ensure increased adequate use of endorsed reporting guidelines.

The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study

BACKGROUND

Complete reporting is essential for clinical research. However, the endorsement of reporting guidelines in radiological journals is still unclear. Further, as a field extensively utilizing artificial intelligence (AI), the adoption of both general and AI reporting guidelines would be necessary for enhancing quality and transparency of radiological research. This study aims to investigate the endorsement of general reporting guidelines and those for AI applications in medical imaging in radiological journals, and explore associated journal characteristic variables.

METHODS

This meta-research study screened journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging category, Science Citation Index Expanded of the 2022 Journal Citation Reports, and excluded journals not publishing original research, in non-English languages, and instructions for authors unavailable. The endorsement of fifteen general reporting guidelines and ten AI reporting guidelines was rated using a five-level tool: "active strong", "active weak", "passive moderate", "passive weak", and "none". The association between endorsement and journal characteristic variables was evaluated by logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

We included 117 journals. The top-five endorsed reporting guidelines were CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 58.1%, 68/117), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 54.7%, 64/117), STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, 51.3%, 60/117), STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy, 50.4%, 59/117), and ARRIVE (Animal Research Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 35.9%, 42/117). The most implemented AI reporting guideline was CLAIM (Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging, 1.7%, 2/117), while other nine AI reporting guidelines were not mentioned. The Journal Impact Factor quartile and publisher were associated with endorsement of reporting guidelines in radiological journals.

CONCLUSIONS

The general reporting guideline endorsement was suboptimal in radiological journals. The implementation of reporting guidelines for AI applications in medical imaging was extremely low. Their adoption should be strengthened to facilitate quality and transparency of radiological study reporting.

Reporting Quality of the Abstracts for Randomized Controlled Trials in Pediatric Dentistry

OBJECTIVES

 The purpose of this study is to systematically appraise the reporting quality of abstracts for randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in pediatric dentistry using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts and to analyze the relationship between the characteristics of the RCT to the quality of abstracts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 RCTs published in Pediatric Dentistry were retrieved from the PubMed database from 2016 to 2021. The quality of abstracts was appraised using CONSORT for abstracts checklist by two independent reviewers.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

 In descriptive statistics, frequency and percentage analysis were used for categorical variables, whereas mean and standard deviation were used for continuous variables. To find the significant difference between the bivariate samples in independent groups, Mann-Whitney U test was employed. Multivariate analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U tests. Probability value of p-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

 Two hundred abstracts were included in the study. All the abstracts adequately reported the "objective" item, whereas only 2 and 4% of abstracts adequately addressed "randomization" and "harms" items, respectively. A significant relationship was observed between the continent of first author/corresponding author, number of authors, impact factor, adherence to CONSORT guidelines, word count, focus of study, and a priori protocol registration to the quality of abstracts (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

 The abstracts of the RCT included in the study did not adequately follow the CONSORT for abstract guidelines. Adherence to the reporting guidelines would improve the overall reporting quality of abstracts of RCT published in Pediatric Dentistry. The overall mean score of the abstracts was 6.80 out of 15 indicating that the abstracts did not adequately follow the CONSORT for abstract reporting guidelines.

Suggestion of more suitable study designs and the corresponding reporting guidelines in articles published in the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions from 2021 to September 2022: a descriptive study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to suggest a more suitable study design and the corresponding reporting guidelines in the papers published in the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professionals from January 2021 to September 2022.

METHODS

Among 59 papers published in the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professionals from January 2021 to September 2022, research articles, review articles, and brief reports were selected. The followings were analyzed: first, the percentage of articles describing the study design in the title, abstracts, or methods; second, the portion of articles describing reporting guidelines; third, the types of study design and corresponding reporting guidelines; and fourth, the suggestion of a more suitable study design based on the study design algorithm for medical literature on interventions, systematic reviews & other review types, and epidemiological studies overview.

RESULTS

Out of 45 articles, 44 described study designs (97.8%). Out of 44, 19 articles were suggested to be described with more suitable study designs, which mainly occurred in before-and-after studies, diagnostic research, and non-randomized trials. Of the 18 reporting guidelines mentioned, 8 (44.4%) were considered perfect. STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) was used for descriptive studies, before-and-after studies, and randomized controlled trials; however, its use should be reconsidered.

CONCLUSION

Some declarations of study design and reporting guidelines were suggested to be described with more suitable ones. Education and training on study design and reporting guidelines for researchers are needed, and reporting guideline policies for descriptive studies should also be implemented.

Is reporting quality in medical publications associated with biostatisticians as co-authors? A registered report protocol

BACKGROUND

Quality in medical research has recently been criticized for being low, especially in observational research. Methodology is increasingly difficult, but collaboration between clinical researchers and biostatisticians may improve research and reporting quality. The aim of this study is to quantify the value of a biostatistician in the team of authors.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective observational study following the STROBE reporting guidelines. We will systematically review all medical publications with biostatisticians from our center as co-authors or authors and review corresponding papers without biostatisticians from our center during the same time range. We will compare aspects of reporting quality, overall and for the three study types observational, randomized trial, and prognostic separately.

DISCUSSION

We anticipate that the results of the study will raise awareness of the importance of high methodological quality, as well as appropriate reporting quality in clinical research.

CONCLUSION

Our study will have a direct impact on our center by making each of us more aware of the reporting guidelines for various research designs. This in turn will enhance reporting quality in future research with our involvement. Our study will also raise awareness of the important role that biostatisticians play in the design and analysis of health research projects.