Abstract
ObjectiveTo describe surgical journals’ position statements on data-sharing policies (primary objective) and to describe key features of their research transparency promotion.MethodsOnly “SURGICAL” journals with an impact factor higher than 2 (Web of Science) were eligible for the study. They were included, if there were explicit instructions for clinical trial publication in the official instructions for authors (OIA) or if they had published randomised controlled trial (RCT) between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018. The primary outcome was the existence of a data-sharing policy included in the instructions for authors. Data-sharing policies were grouped into 3 categories, inclusion of data-sharing policy mandatory, optional, or not available. Details on research transparency promotion were also collected, namely the existence of a “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement policy”, a conflict of interests (COIs) disclosure requirement, and a specific reference to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT for RCT.ResultsAmong the 87 surgical journals identified, 82 were included in the study: 67 (82%) had explicit instructions for RCT and the remaining 15 (18%) had published at least one RCT. The median impact factor was 2.98 [IQR = 2.48–3.77], and in 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 11.5 RCT [IQR = 5–20.75].The OIA of four journals (5%) stated that the inclusion of a data-sharing statement was mandatory, optional in 45% (n = 37), and not included in 50% (n = 41).No association was found between journal characteristics and the existence of data-sharing policies (mandatory or optional). A “prospective registration of clinical trials requirement” was associated with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) allusion or affiliation and higher impact factors. Journals with specific RCT instructions in their OIA and journals referenced on the ICMJE website more frequently mandated the use of CONSORT guidelines.ConclusionResearch transparency promotion is still limited in surgical journals. Standardisation of journal requirements according to ICMJE guidelines could be a first step forward for research transparency promotion in surgery.
Highlights
Surgical journals have a key role in ensuring transparency, openness, and reproducibility [1] to increase value and reduce waste in the research they publish [2]
In 2016 and 2017, the journals published a median of 12 randomised controlled trials (RCT) [interquartile range (IQR) = 5–21]
The association of other research transparency promotion item relationships with journal impact factor and the number of RCT published are illustrated in the Fig. 2
Summary
Surgical journals have a key role in ensuring transparency, openness, and reproducibility [1] to increase value and reduce waste in the research they publish [2]. Editorial standards promoting transparency are expected when it comes to randomised controlled trials (RCT) because their importance is paramount in drafting guidelines that can impact medical practice worldwide. Surgical interventions are invasive and in some surgical trials, participants may expose themselves to heightened risk with uncertain benefits. This results in an implicit social contract imposing an ethical obligation whereupon the results lead to the greatest possible benefit to society [3]. The latest breakthrough was the adoption of a policy that encourages RCT data sharing and requires a datasharing statement to be included in the reports of published clinical trials by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) [4]. The statement must clearly specify the start and end date that the data will be available, with whom the data may be shared, the modality of access, and other documents that would be available
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
