Do journals publishing in the field of urology endorse reporting guidelines? A survey of author instructions

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.

Bibliometric analysis of academic journal recommendations and requirements for surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting

BACKGROUND

Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures.

RESULTS

Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality.

The relationship between endorsing reporting guidelines or trial registration and the impact factor or total citations in surgical journals

BACKGROUND

A journal's impact factor (IF) and total citations are often used as indicators of its publication quality. Furthermore, journals that require authors to abide by reporting guidelines or conduct trial registration generally have a higher quality of reporting. In this study, we sought to explore the potential associations between the enforcement of reporting guidelines or trial registration and a surgical journal's IF or total citations in order to find new approaches and ideas to improve journal publication quality.

METHODS

We examined surgical journals from the 2018 Journal Citation Report's Expanded Scientific Citation Index to quantify the use of reporting guidelines or study registration. We reviewed the "instructions for authors" from each journal and used multivariable linear regression analysis to determine which guidelines were associated with the journal IF and total citations. The dependent variable was the logarithm base 10 of the IF in 2018 or the logarithm base 10 of total citations in 2018 (the results were presented as geometric means, specifically the ratio of the "endorsed group" results to "not endorsed group" results). The independent variable was one of the requirements (endorsed and not endorsed). Models adjust for the publication region, language, start year, publisher and journal size (only used to adjust total citations).

RESULTS

We included 188 surgical journals in our study. The results of multivariable linear regression analysis showed that journal IF was associated (P < 0.01) with the following requirements: randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration (geometric means ratio (GR) = 1.422, 95% CI [1.197-1.694]), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (1.318, [1.104-1.578]), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (1.390, [1.148-1.683]), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement (1.556, [1.262-1.919]), Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement (1.585, [1.216-2.070]), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement (2.113, [1.422-3.133]). We found associations between the endorsement of RCT registration (GR = 1.652, 95% CI [1.268-2.153]), CONSORT (1.570, [1.199-2.061]), PRISMA (1.698, [1.271-2.270]), STROBE (2.023, [1.476-2.773]), STARD (2.173, [1.452-3.243]), and MOOSE statements (2.249, [1.219-4.150]) and the number of total citations.

CONCLUSION

The presence of reporting guidelines and trial registration was associated with higher IF or more total citations in surgical journals. If more surgical journals incorporate these policies into their submission requirements, this may improve publication quality, thus increasing their IF and total citations.

Reporting Policies in Neurosurgical Journals: A Meta-Science Study of the Current State and Case for Standardization

BACKGROUND

Reporting quality within the neurosurgical literature is low, limiting the ability of journals to act as gatekeepers for evidence-based neurosurgical care. Journal policies during article submission aim to improve reporting quality. We conducted a meta-science study characterizing the reporting policies of neurosurgical journals and other related peer-reviewed publications.

METHODS

Journals were retrieved in 7 searches using Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar. Characteristics, impact metrics, and submission policies were extracted.

RESULTS

Of 486 results, 54 journals were included, including 27 neurosurgical and 27 related topical journals. Thirty-eight (70.4%) adopted authorship guidelines and 20 (37.0%) disclosure standards of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors. Twenty-six (48.1%) required data availability statement and 33 (61.1%) clinical trials registration. Twenty-one (38.9%) required and 11 (20.4%) recommended adherence to reporting guidelines. Twenty (37.0%) endorsed EQUATOR network guidelines. PRISMA was mentioned by 30 (55.6%) journals, CONSORT by 28 (51.9%), and STROBE by 18 (33.3%). Among neurosurgical journals, factors associated with a requirement or recommendation to follow reporting guidelines among neurosurgical journals included impact factor (P = 0.0013), Article Influence Score (P = 0.0236), SCImago h-index (P = 0.0152), SCImago journal rank (P = 0.002), and CiteScore (P = 0.0023), as well as recommendations pertaining to International Council of Medical Journal Editors authorship guidelines (P = 0.0085), ORCID (P = 0.014), clinical trials registration (P = 0.0369), or data availability statement (P = 0.0047). CONSORT, PRISMA, or STROBE delineations were significantly associated with the mention of another guideline (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Neurosurgical journal submission policies are inconsistent. Frameworks to improve reporting quality are uncommonly used. Increasing rigor and standardization of reporting policies across journals publishers may improve quality.

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals' recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals' Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).

Comparing the reporting and conduct quality of exercise and pharmacological randomised controlled trials: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the quality of exercise randomised controlled trial (RCT) reporting and conduct in clinical populations (ie, adults with or at risk of chronic conditions) and compare with matched pharmacological RCTs.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (NLM) and CINAHL (EBSCO).

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs of exercise in clinical populations with matching pharmacological RCTs published in leading clinical, medical and specialist journals with impact factors ≥15.

REVIEW METHODS

Overall RCT quality was evaluated by two independent reviewers using three research reporting guidelines (ie, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT; pharmacological RCTs)/CONSORT for non-pharmacological treatments; exercise RCTs), CONSORT-Harms, Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and two risk of bias assessment (research conduct) tools (ie, Cochrane Risk of Bias, Jadad Scale). We compared research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs with matched pharmacological RCTs, and examined factors associated with quality in exercise and pharmacological RCTs, separately.

FINDINGS

Forty-eight exercise RCTs (11 658 patients; median sample n=138) and 48 matched pharmacological RCTs were evaluated (18 501 patients; median sample n=160). RCTs were conducted primarily in cardiovascular medicine (43%) or oncology (31%). Overall quality score (composite of all research reporting and conduct quality scores; primary endpoint) for exercise RCTs was 58% (median score 46 of 80; IQR: 39-51) compared with 77% (53 of 68; IQR: 47-58) in the matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.001). Individual quality scores for trial reporting and conduct were lower in exercise RCTs compared with matched pharmacological RCTs (p≤0.03). Factors associated with higher overall quality scores for exercise RCTs were journal impact factor (≥25), sample size (≥152) and publication year (≥2013).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Research reporting and conduct quality within exercise RCTs is inferior to matched pharmacological RCTs. Suboptimal RCT reporting and conduct impact the fidelity, interpretation, and reproducibility of exercise trials and, ultimately, implementation of exercise in clinical populations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095033.

Requirements for Study Registration and Adherence to Reporting Guidelines in Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Reporting guidelines and study registration can minimize bias and improve the reporting quality of biomedical research, but may not be fully utilized. The objective of this study was to investigate the policies of surgery journals as for reporting guidelines and study registration and explore associated journal characteristic variables.

METHODS

Study samples were obtained from the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2018 Journal Citation Reports (surgery category). The online guides for authors were browsed to identify which journals endorsed reporting guidelines and study registration. The predictors related to the endorsement were explored by using Chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-eight surgery journals were included in our study. One hundred and sixty-three journals (86.7%) endorsed reporting guidelines and 103 journals (54.8%) endorsed study registration. About reporting guidelines, ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) recommendations were the most frequently endorsed (n = 155, 82.4%) by journals, followed by CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement (n = 94, 50.0%). About study registration, randomized controlled trial registration was endorsed by 101 (53.7%) journals, whereas the systematic review registration was endorsed by only 9 journals (4.8%). The results of multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that not North America, higher JCR (Journal Citation Reports) rank journals were more likely to endorse reporting guidelines and study registration.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery journals frequently use reporting guidelines, but nearly half of journals did not require study registration. Implementing these two mechanisms can prevent bias, and their adoption should be strengthened by authors, reviewers and journal editors in surgery.

Online survey about the STROBE statement highlighted diverging views about its content, purpose, and value

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The endorsement rates of The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement are low and little is known about authors' opinions about this reporting guideline. We conducted an online survey with observational study authors on attitude toward and experiences with the STROBE Statement with the aim of understanding how to effectively implement STROBE.

METHODS

A thematic analysis on the responses to an open-ended question was conducted using inductive coding. Two coders classified responses independently into themes using a codebook. The inter-rater agreement ranged from 87.7 to 99.9%.

RESULTS

15% (n = 150) of survey participants (n = 1,015) shared perceptions and insights on STROBE. We established four themes: 1) perceptions of the checklist, 2) academic confidence, 3) use in education and training, and 4) journal endorsement and use in peer review. Views were diverse and revealed multiple misunderstandings about the checklist's purpose and content, and lack of incentives for its use.

CONCLUSIONS

Better communication efforts are needed when disseminating STROBE and other reporting guidelines. These should focus on content, education for early career researchers, and encouragement of critical self-reflection on one's own work. In addition, results emphasized the need for better incentive and enforcement mechanisms.

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

OBJECTIVES

To improve the trustworthiness of evidence, studies should be prospectively registered and research reports should adhere to existing standards. We aimed to systematically assess the degree to which endocrinology and internal medicine journals endorse study registration and reporting standards for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews (SRs) and observational studies (ObS). Additionally, we evaluated characteristics that predict endorsement of reporting or registration mechanism by these journals.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

SETTING

Journals included in the 'Endocrinology and Metabolism' and 'General and Internal Medicine' 2017 Journal Citation Reports.

PARTICIPANTS

Journals with an impact factor of ≥1.0, focused on clinical medicine, and those who publish RCTs, SRs and ObS were included.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Requirement of adherence to reporting guideline and study registration as determined from the journals' author instructions.

RESULTS

Of the 170 (82 endocrinology and 88 internal medicine) eligible journals, endorsing of reporting standards was the highest for RCTs, with 35 (43%) of endocrine journals and 55 (63%) of internal medicine journals followed by SRs, with 21 (26%) and 48 (55%), respectively, and lastly, by ObS with 41 (50%) of endocrine journals and 21 (24%) of internal medicine journals. In 78 (46%) journals RCTs were required to be registered and published in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Only 11 (6%) journals required registration of SRs. Internal medicine journals were more likely to endorse reporting guidelines than endocrine journals except for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. No other journal characteristic proved to be an independent predictor of reporting standard endorsement for RCTs besides trial registration.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight that study registration requirement and reporting guideline endorsement are suboptimal in internal medicine and endocrine journals. This malpractice may be further enhanced since endorsement does not imply enforcement, impairing the practice of evidence-based medicine.

A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions

OBJECTIVES

The STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement provides guidance on reporting observational studies. Many extensions have been created for specialized methods or fields. We determined endorsement prevalence and typology by journals in extension-related fields.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A published protocol defined search strategies to identify journals publishing observational studies (2007-2017) across seven fields relating to STROBE extensions. We extracted text regarding STROBE, seven STROBE extensions, reporting guidelines Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and transparent reporting documents/groups: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) networks. Relationships between endorsing STROBE, endorsing other guidelines, and journal impact factor were tested using chi square and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS

Of 257 unique journals, 12 (5%) required STROBE on submission, 22 (9%) suggested use, 12 (5%) recommended a "relevant guideline," 72 (28%) mentioned it indirectly (via editorial policies or International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations), and 139 (54%) did not mention STROBE. The relevant extension was required by 2 (<1%) journals; 4 (1%) suggested use. STROBE endorsement was not associated with journal impact indices but was with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses endorsements.

CONCLUSION

Reporting guideline endorsement rates are low; information is vague and scattered. Unambiguous language is needed to improve adherence to reporting guidelines and increase the quality of reporting.

Do Addiction Science Journals Endorse Unbiased Reporting of Research? A Systematic Evaluation of Instructions for Authors

Introduction: Well-structured instructions for authors in journals help researchers in reporting unbiased results, which subsequently facilitates the review process. There have been reports of systematic evaluations of instructions for authors from journals in various medical specialties. However, precise information on the nature and extent of these instructions for authors in addiction science is lacking. Hence, this study systematically evaluated the instructions for authors for journals in addiction science. Methods: A total of 1139 journal titles were retrieved across multiple databases. Finally, 88 exclusive titles fulfilling the eligibility criteria were considered in this study. The four domains evaluated were journal characteristics, reporting, statistical reporting, and ethical requirements. Results: More than half of the journals were published by academic institutions or professional societies. Less than one-fourth of the journals endorsed adherence to various reporting guidelines and endorsed the Consolidated Statements on Randomized Controlled Trials guidelines to the maximum level (14.8%). Approximately, half (48.9%) of the journals had a separate section on "statistical analysis." The various parameters of statistical reporting were suboptimally endorsed. Conclusion/Importance: The instructions for authors in addiction science journals provide insufficient information in various domains. There is an urgent need to improve the author instructions segment of addiction science journals so that the process of research dissemination can occur more effectively. A higher rate of endorsement of various reporting guidelines and statistical reporting may help to minimize reporting bias as well as prevent unnecessary delays in the publication of important research findings.

Structure formats of randomised controlled trial abstracts: a cross-sectional analysis of their current usage and association with methodology reporting

BACKGROUND

The reporting of randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts is of vital importance. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the association between structure format and RCT abstracts' quality of methodology reporting, informed by the current requirement and usage of structure formats by leading general medical/internal medicine journals (secondary objective).

METHODS

A two-part cross-sectional study. First, through hand searches, we identified all RCTs published in the top-50 high-impact general medical/internal medicine journals during July-December 2015 (n = 370), and retrieved the 'instructions to authors' of these journals. From these, we extracted the actual usage of structure formats and headings, as well as relevant journal policies. Then, after a pilot study and sample size calculation, we assessed the methodology reporting quality of 176 IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion) and 165 HS (Highly Structured) RCT abstracts sampled from 33 of the 50 selected journals, using a 9-item checklist developed based on the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines (primary outcome: overall quality score, OQS; score range 0 to 9).

RESULTS

88% (324/370) of all identified RCT abstracts were structured, among which 66% (215/324) used the IMRaD format and 34% (109/324) used HS. According to journals' 'instructions to authors', 48% (24/50) journals required IMRaD, 32% (16/50) required HS, 8% (4/50) required unstructured, while the rest did not state any requirement on structure format. According to generalised estimation equation analysis adjusting for potential confounders and clustering effects, the OQS of HS abstracts was 0.5 (95% CI 0.1 to 1.0, p = 0.028) higher than IMRaD abstracts. More HS abstracts reported study setting (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 1.7 to 10.0; p = 0.001), definition of the main outcome measure (2.5; 1.3 to 4.9; p = 0.006) and the time point for main outcome assessment (3.0; 1.5 to 6.2; p = 0.002), whereas more IMRaD abstracts described the unit of randomisation (0.4; 0.3 to 0.8; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

For RCT abstracts, the IMRaD format is more frequently used and required by leading general medical/internal medicine journals than the HS format. Abstracts in the HS format report trial methodology more completely than those in the IMRaD format.

The STROBE extensions: protocol for a qualitative assessment of content and a survey of endorsement

INTRODUCTION

The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement was developed in response to inadequate reporting of observational studies. In recent years, several extensions to STROBE have been created to provide more nuanced field-specific guidance for authors. The content and the prevalence of extension endorsement have not yet been assessed. Accordingly, there are two aims: (1) to classify changes made in the extensions to identify strengths and weaknesses of the original STROBE checklist and (2) to determine the prevalence and typology of endorsement by journals in fields related to extensions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two independent researchers will assess additions in each extension. Additions will be coded as 'field specific' (FS) or 'not field specific' (NFS). FS is defined as particularly relevant information for a single field and guidance provided generally cannot be extrapolated beyond that field. NFS is defined as information that reflects epidemiological or methodological tenets and can be generalised to most, if not all, types of observational research studies. Intraclass correlation will be calculated to measure reviewers' concordance. On disagreement, consensus will be sought. Individual additions will be grouped by STROBE checklist items to identify the frequency and distribution of changes.Journals in fields related to extensions will be identified through National Library of Medicine PubMed Broad Subject Terms, screened for eligibility and further distilled via Ovid MEDLINE® search strategies for observational studies. Text describing endorsement will be extracted from each journal's website. A classification scheme will be created for endorsement types and the prevalence of endorsement will be estimated. Analyses will use NVivo V.11 and SAS University Edition.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study does not require ethical approval as it does not involve human participants. This study has been preregistered on Open Science Framework.

A Survey of the Prevalence and Impact of Reporting Guideline Endorsement in Pathology Journals

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of reporting guideline endorsement in pathology journals and to estimate the impact of guideline endorsement.

METHODS

We compared the quality of reporting in two sets of studies: (1) studies published in journals that explicitly mentioned a guideline vs studies published in journals that did not and (2) studies that cited a guideline vs studies that did not. The quality of reporting in prognostic biomarker studies was assessed using the REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) guideline.

RESULTS

We found that six (10%) of the 59 leading pathology journals explicitly mention reporting guidelines in the instructions to authors. Only one journal required authors to submit a checklist. There was significant variation in the rate at which various REMARK items were reported (P < .001). Journal endorsement was associated with more complete reporting (P = .04). Studies that cited REMARK had greater adherence to the REMARK reporting guidelines than studies that did not (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of guideline endorsement is relatively low in pathology journals, but guideline endorsement may improve the quality of reporting.

Support for reporting guidelines in surgical journals needs improvement: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Evidence-based medicine works best if the evidence is reported well. Past studies have shown reporting quality to be lacking in the field of surgery. Reporting guidelines are an important tool for authors to optimize the reporting of their research. The objective of this study was to analyse the frequency and strength of recommendation for such reporting guidelines within surgical journals.

METHODS

A systematic review of the 198 journals within the Journal Citation Report 2014 (surgery category) published by Thomson Reuters was undertaken. The online guide for authors for each journal was screened by two independent groups and results compared. Data regarding the presence and strength of recommendation to use reporting guidelines was extracted.

RESULTS

193 journals were included (as five appeared twice having changed their name). These had a median impact factor of 1.526 (range 0.047-8.327), with a median of 145 articles published per journal (range 29-659), with 34,036 articles published in total over the two-year window 2012-2013. The majority (62%) of surgical journals made no mention of reporting guidelines within their guidelines for authors. Of the 73 (38%) that did mention them, only 14% (10/73) required the use of all relevant reporting guidelines. The most frequently mentioned reporting guideline was CONSORT (46 journals).

CONCLUSIONS

The mention of reporting guidelines within the guide for authors of surgical journals needs improvement. Authors, reviewers and editors should work to ensure that research is reported in line with the relevant reporting guidelines. Journals should consider hard-wiring adherence to them.

Guidance in author instructions of hematology and oncology journals: A cross sectional and longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

The debate about the value of biomedical publications led to recommendations for improving reporting quality. It is unclear to what extent these recommendations have been endorsed by journals. We analyzed whether specific recommendations were included in author instructions, which journal characteristics were associated with their endorsement, how endorsement of the domains changed and whether endorsement was associated with change of impact factor between 2010 and 2015.

METHODS

We considered two study samples consisting of "Hematology" and "Oncology" journals of the Journal Citation Report 2008 and 2014, respectively. We extracted information regarding endorsement of the (1) recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of (2) reporting guidelines, (3) requirement for trial registration and (4) disclosure of conflicts of interest. Data extraction was done by reading the author instructions before conducting a text search with keywords. We calculated a global generalized linear mixed effects model for endorsement of each of the four domains followed by separate multivariable logistic regression models and a longitudinal analysis. We defined endorsement as the author instructions saying that they approve the use of the recommendations.

RESULTS

In 2015, the ICMJE recommendations were mentioned in author instructions of 156 journals (67.5%). CONSORT was referred to by 77 journals (33.3%); MOOSE, PRISMA, STARD and STROBE were referred to by less than 15% of journals. There were 99 journals (42.9%) that recommended or required trial registration, 211 (91.3%) required authors to disclose conflicts of interest. Journal impact factor, journal start year and geographical region were positively associated with endorsement of any of the four domains. The overall endorsement of all domains increased between 2010 and 2015. The endorsement of any domain in 2010 seemed to be associated with an increased impact factor in 2014.

CONCLUSION

Hematology and oncology journals endorse major recommendations to various degrees. Endorsement is increasing slowly over time and might be positively associated with the journals' impact factor.

Surveys on Reporting Guideline Usage in Dental Journals

The objectives of this study were 1) to find out if and how authors and peer reviewers for dental journals are encouraged to use reporting guidelines (RGs); 2) to identify factors related to RG endorsement; and 3) to assess the knowledge, opinions, and future plans of dental journal editors in chief (EICs) on RGs. A total of 109 peer-reviewed and original research-oriented dental journals that were indexed in the MEDLINE and/or SCIE database in 2015 were included. The "instructions to authors" and "instructions to reviewers" of these journals were identified and retrieved from journals' official websites. Any mention of RGs or other related policies were sought and extracted. In addition, an anonymous survey of the EICs of the included journals was conducted with a validated questionnaire. All 109 journals provided "instructions to authors," among which 55 (50.5%) mentioned RGs. Only the CONSORT (45.0%), PRISMA (13.8%), and STROBE (12.8%) guidelines were mentioned by >10% of the included journals. Statistical analyses suggest that RGs were more frequently mentioned by SCIE-indexed journals (P < 0.001), higher-impact journals (P = 0.002), and journals that endorsed the ICMJE recommendations (P < 0.001). "Instructions to reviewers" were available online for only 9 journals (8.3%), 3 of which mentioned RGs. For the EIC survey, the response rate was 32.1% (35 of 109). Twenty-six editors (74.3%) stated that they knew what RGs were before receiving our questionnaire. Twenty-four editors (68.6%) believed that RGs should be adopted by all refereed dental journals where appropriate. RGs are important tools for enhancing research reporting and reducing avoidable research waste, but currently they are not widely endorsed by dental journals. Joint efforts by all stakeholders to further promote RG usage in dentistry are needed.

Updating standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy: the development of STARD 2015

Background

Although the number of reporting guidelines has grown rapidly, few have gone through an updating process. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy), published in 2003 to help improve the transparency and completeness of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, was recently updated in a systematic way. Here, we describe the steps taken and a justification for the changes made.

Results

A 4-member Project Team coordinated the updating process; a 14-member Steering Committee was regularly solicited by the Project Team when making critical decisions. First, a review of the literature was performed to identify topics and items potentially relevant to the STARD updating process. After this, the 85 members of the STARD Group were invited to participate in two online surveys to identify items that needed to be modified, removed from, or added to the STARD checklist. Based on the results of the literature review process, 33 items were presented to the STARD Group in the online survey: 25 original items and 8 new items; 73 STARD Group members (86 %) completed the first survey, and 79 STARD Group members (93 %) completed the second survey.Then, an in-person consensus meeting was organized among the members of the Project Team and Steering Committee to develop a consensual draft version of STARD 2015. This version was piloted in three rounds among a total of 32 expert and non-expert users. Piloting mostly led to rewording of items. After this, the update was finalized. The updated STARD 2015 list now consists of 30 items. Compared to the previous version of STARD, three original items were each converted into two new items, four original items were incorporated into other items, and seven new items were added.

Conclusions

After a systematic updating process, STARD 2015 provides an updated list of 30 essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies.

Do Croatian open access journals support ethical research? Content analysis of instructions to authors

INTRODUCTION

The aim of our study was to investigate the extent to which Instructions to authors of the Croatian open access (OA) journals are addressing ethical issues. Do biomedical journals differ from the journals from other disciplines in that respect? Our hypothesis was that biomedical journals maintain much higher publication ethics standards.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study looked at 197 Croatian OA journals Instructions to authors to address the following groups of ethical issues: general terms; guidelines and recommendations; research approval and registration; funding and conflict of interest; peer review; redundant publications, misconduct and retraction; copyright; timeliness; authorship; and data accessibility. We further compared a subset of 159 non-biomedical journals with a subset of 38 biomedical journals. Content analysis was used to discern the ethical issues representation in the instructions to authors.

RESULTS

The groups of biomedical and non-biomedical journals were similar in terms of originality (χ2=2.183, P=0.140), peer review process (χ2=0.296, P=0.586), patent/grant statement (χ2=2.184, P=0.141), and timeliness of publication (χ2=0.369, P=0.544). We identified significant differences among categories including ethical issues typical for the field of biomedicine, like patients (χ2=47.111, P<0.001), and use of experimental animals (χ2=42.543, P<0.001). Biomedical journals also rely on international editorial guidelines formulated by relevant professional organizations heavily, compared with non-biomedical journals (χ2=42.666, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Low representation or absence of some key ethical issues in author guidelines calls for more attention to the structure and the content of Instructions to authors in Croatian OA journals.

Impact of the transparent reporting of evaluations with nonrandomized designs reporting guideline: ten years on

OBJECTIVES

We assessed how the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was used by authors and journal editors in journals' instructions to authors. We also evaluated its impact on reporting completeness and study quality.

METHODS

We extracted data from publications that cited TREND on how TREND was used in those reports; we also extracted information on journals' instructions to authors. We then undertook a case-control study of relevant publications to evaluate the impact of using TREND.

RESULTS

Between 2004 and 2013, TREND was cited 412 times, but it was only evidently applied to study reports 47 times. TREND was specifically mentioned 14 times in the sample of 61 instructions to authors. Some evidence suggested that use of TREND was associated with more comprehensive reporting and higher study quality ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

TREND appeared to be underutilized by authors and journal editors despite its potential application and benefits. We found evidence that suggested that using TREND could contribute to more transparent and complete study reports. Even when authors reported using TREND, reporting completeness was still suboptimal.

An assessment on the quality of abstracts presented at the British Association of Urological Surgeons annual meeting

Objectives:

To assess the quality of abstracts presented at the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) annual meeting using standardized reporting guidelines and examine whether abstract quality is associated with conversion to full-text publication.

Materials and methods:

Two standardized assessment forms based on CONSORT/STROBE guidelines were used to score abstracts from the 2009 BAUS meeting retrospectively. A high score ratio was defined as >50% of criteria. Kaplan–Meier analysis examined effect of score ratio on time to publication; logistic regression examined predictive potential of variables including; session topic, study design, country of origin and number of institutions to high score ratio and the effects the above factors and a high score ratio on the likelihood of full-text publication.

Results:

In total, 127 abstracts were included. The mean score ratio was 63.6% (SD 13.3%) for observational studies and 62.7% (SD 9.5%) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Nine RCT abstracts and 91 non-RCT abstracts achieved a high score ratio. Abstract topic, study design, country of origin and number of institutions did not predict a high score ratio or subsequent full-length publication using multivariate logistic regression. Full-length publication was achieved for 43 (33.9%) abstracts. Mean time to publication was 17.2 months. Abstract quality did not predict time to publication ( p=0.706).

Conclusion:

BAUS abstracts are of high quality, and compare favourably with other urological meetings. While abstract quality does not independently predict full-length publication, most abstracts do not progress to full-length publication and thus we advocate the use of standardized reporting guidelines to ensure accurate interpretation of study methodology and results.

Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012

Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research.

How psychiatry journals support the unbiased translation of clinical research. A cross-sectional study of editorial policies

INTRODUCTION

Reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT) have been developed as tools to improve quality and reduce bias in reporting research findings. Trial registration has been recommended for countering selective publication. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) encourages the implementation of reporting guidelines and trial registration as uniform requirements (URM). For the last two decades, however, biased reporting and insufficient registration of clinical trials has been identified in several literature reviews and other investigations. No study has so far investigated the extent to which author instructions in psychiatry journals encourage following reporting guidelines and trial registration.

METHOD

Psychiatry Journals were identified from the 2011 Journal Citation Report. Information given in the author instructions and during the submission procedure of all journals was assessed on whether major reporting guidelines, trial registration and the ICMJE's URM in general were mentioned and adherence recommended.

RESULTS

We included 123 psychiatry journals (English and German language) in our analysis. A minority recommend or require 1) following the URM (21%), 2) adherence to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE (23%, 7%, 4%), or 3) registration of clinical trials (34%). The subsample of the top-10 psychiatry journals (ranked by impact factor) provided much better but still improvable rates. For example, 70% of the top-10 psychiatry journals do not ask for the specific trial registration number.

DISCUSSION

Under the assumption that better reported and better registered clinical research that does not lack substantial information will improve the understanding, credibility, and unbiased translation of clinical research findings, several stakeholders including readers (physicians, patients), authors, reviewers, and editors might benefit from improved author instructions in psychiatry journals. A first step of improvement would consist in requiring adherence to the broadly accepted reporting guidelines and to trial registration.

Promoting transparent and accurate reporting of research studies in rheumatology: endorsement of reporting guidelines in rheumatology journals

OBJECTIVES

To adequately translate research into practice, research results should be reported in a way that is useful to practicing clinicians and policymakers. Based on evidence from systematic reviews, the implementation of reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT for randomized controlled trials, may improve the quality of research reporting. We assessed the endorsement of reporting guidelines in rheumatology journals.

METHODS

We analyzed guidelines for authors of all (n = 28) journals indexed in the "Rheumatology" Subject Category of the Journal Citation Reports published in 2012. Journal websites were reviewed for information relevant to reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

Out of 28 indexed journals, only about a third (n = 10) endorsed 1 or more reporting guidelines, most commonly CONSORT. General editorial policies, such as those from the International Committee of Medical Journal editors (ICMJE), were endorsed by 19 journals (all 10 journals with and 9 out of 18 without reporting guidelines). Two rheumatology journals introduced specific reporting guidelines about economic studies and genetic association studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The endorsement of reporting guidelines is low in rheumatology journals. To continue to serve their research community, rheumatology journals should provide the platform for the discussion on most relevant reporting guidelines and adopt them as a group, especially those specific for rheumatology research. Coordinated action of journals and other stakeholders in rheumatology research in the promotion of accurate and transparent reporting of health research studies would be an important part of knowledge translation into practice and well-being of rheumatology patients.

Evaluating the impact and use of Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Accurate and full reporting of evaluation of interventions in health research is needed for evidence synthesis and informed decision-making. Evidence suggests that biases and incomplete reporting affect the assessment of study validity and the ability to include this data in secondary research. The Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guideline was developed to improve the transparency and accuracy of the reporting of behavioural and public health evaluations with non-randomised designs. Evaluations of reporting guidelines have shown that they can be effective in improving reporting completeness. Although TREND occupies a niche within reporting guidelines, and despite it being 8 years since publication, no study yet has assessed its impact on reporting completeness or investigated what factors affect its use by authors and journal editors. This protocol describes two studies that aim to redress this.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Study 1 will use an observational design to examine the uptake and use of TREND by authors, and by journals in their instructions to authors. A comparison of reporting completeness and study quality of papers that do and do not use TREND to inform reporting will be made. Study 2 will use a cross-sectional survey to investigate what factors inhibit or facilitate authors' and journal editors' use of TREND. Semistructured interviews will also be conducted with a subset of authors and editors to explore findings from study 1 and the surveys in greater depth.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

These studies will generate evidence of how implementation and dissemination of the TREND guideline has affected reporting completeness in studies with experimental, non-randomised designs within behavioural and public health research. The project has received ethics approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth.