Abstract
BackgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the “Instructions for Authors” of emergency medicine journals.MethodsWe performed a web-based data abstraction from the “Instructions for Authors” of the 27 Emergency Medicine journals catalogued in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index to identify whether each journal required, recommended, or made no mention of the following reporting guidelines: EQUATOR Network, ICMJE, ARRIVE, CARE, CONSORT, STARD, TRIPOD, CHEERS, MOOSE, STROBE, COREQ, SRQR, SQUIRE, PRISMA-P, SPIRIT, PRISMA, and QUOROM. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another’s ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross-tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS 22.ResultsOf the 27 emergency medicine journals, 11 (11/27, 40.7%) did not mention a single guideline within their “Instructions for Authors,” while the remaining 16 (16/27, 59.3%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The QUOROM statement and SRQR were not mentioned by any journals whereas the ICMJE guidelines (18/27, 66.7%) and CONSORT statement (15/27, 55.6%) were mentioned most often. Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 15 (15/27, 55.6%) did not mention trial or review registration, while the remaining 12 (12/27, 44.4%) at least mentioned one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by seven (7/27, 25.9%) journals while the WHO registry was mentioned by four (4/27, 14.8%). Twelve (12/27, 44.4%) journals mentioned trial registration through any registry platform.DiscussionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the “Instructions for Authors” of emergency medicine journals. In this study, there was not a single reporting guideline mentioned in more than half of the journals. This undermines efforts of other journals to improve the completeness and transparency of research reporting.ConclusionsReporting guidelines are infrequently required or recommended by emergency medicine journals. Furthermore, few require clinical trial registration. These two mechanisms may limit bias and should be considered for adoption by journal editors in emergency medicine.Trial registration UMIN000022486 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-016-0331-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Highlights
Reporting guidelines have been developed for authors to improve the quality of research reporting, encourage transparency, and discourage methodological aspects of study design that contribute to bias [1, 2]
The descriptions were vague and required further clarification. These authors emailed the Editor-inChief of the journals to inquire about the types of study designs considered for publication
Following a review of “Instructions for Authors” and editorin-chief email inquiries, the following reporting guidelines were removed from computing proportions due to their study type not being accepted by the journal: Case Reports (CARE) statement (7/27, 25.9%), Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) (1/27, 3.7%), TRIPOD statement (1/27, 3.7%), Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist (1/27, 3.7%), STROBE checklist (1/27, 3.7%), and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) (2/27, 7.4%) (Table 2)
Summary
The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the “Instructions for Authors” of emergency medicine journals. Reporting guidelines have been developed for authors to improve the quality of research reporting, encourage transparency, and discourage methodological aspects of study design that contribute to bias [1, 2]. Evidence suggests that guideline adoption improves the quality of research reporting [4, 5], in part, by minimizing the omission of critical information in methods sections, inadequate reporting of adverse events, or misleading presentations of results [6]. EQUATOR has catalogued 308 guidelines for all types of study designs [7]. CONSORT guidelines for randomized controlled trials, PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews, and STROBE guidelines for observational studies are among the most used guidelines found in the EQUATOR library
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
