Use Of Reporting Guidelines Research Articles

Evaluating guideline and registration policies among neurology journals: a cross-sectional analysis

BackgroundNeurological disorders have had a substantial rise the last three decades, imposing substantial burdens on both patients and healthcare costs. Consequently, the demand for high-quality research has become crucial for exploring effective treatment options. However, current neurology research has some limitations in terms of transparency, reproducibility, and reporting bias. The adoption of reporting guidelines (RGs) and trial registration policies has been proven to address these issues and improve research quality in other medical disciplines. It is unclear the extent to which these policies are being endorsed by neurology journals. Therefore, our study aims to evaluate the publishing policies of top neurology journals regarding RGs and trial registration.MethodsFor this cross-sectional study, neurology journals were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore Tool. The top 100 journals were listed and screened for eligibility for our study. In a masked, duplicate fashion, investigators extracted data on journal characteristics, policies on RGs, and policies on trial registration using information from each journal’s Instruction for Authors webpage. Additionally, investigators contacted journal editors to ensure information was current and accurate. No human participants were involved in this study. Our data collection and analyses were performed from December 14, 2022, to January 9, 2023.ResultsOf the 356 neurology journals identified, the top 100 were included into our sample. The five-year impact of these journals ranged from 50.844 to 2.226 (mean [SD], 7.82 [7.01]). Twenty-five (25.0%) journals did not require or recommend a single RG within their Instructions for Authors webpage, and a third (33.0%) did not require or recommend clinical trial registration. The most frequently mentioned RGs were CONSORT (64.6%), PRISMA (52.5%), and ARRIVE (53.1%). The least mentioned RG was QUOROM (1.0%), followed by MOOSE (9.0%), and SQUIRE (17.9%).ConclusionsWhile many top neurology journals endorse the use of RGs and trial registries, there are still areas where their adoption can be improved. Addressing these shortcomings leads to further advancements in the field of neurology, resulting in higher-quality research and better outcomes for patients.

Declaration of use and appropriate use of reporting guidelines in high-impact rehabilitation journals is limited: a meta-research study

ObjectivesThe main aims of this metaresearch study conducted among high-impact rehabilitation journals were: 1) to evaluate if the use of reporting guidelines (RGs) was declared and 2) to categorize the declared use as appropriate or inappropriate. Study Design and SettingCross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 200 studies published in the period 2010–2019 in five generic rehabilitation journals with the highest 5-year impact factor. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, and diagnostic studies were included. Prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was estimated for the main outcomes. ResultsAmong the 200 selected studies, 17.5% (95% CI: 12.2–22.8%) declared using RGs. Among these studies, 48.6% (95% CI: 32–65.1%) declared an appropriate use. There was an increasing trend over time for authors to report the use of RGs (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13–1.53). Systematic reviews (n = 54) reported more frequently the use of RGs than other study designs (35.2%). ConclusionIn high-impact rehabilitation journals, a small minority of article authors declared the use of RGs. In approximately half of these studies, RGs were used inappropriately. There is an urgent need to improve the use of RGs in this field of research.

Successful publishing: The use of reporting guidelines

Successful publishing: The use of reporting guidelines

The explicit mentioning of reporting guidelines in urogynecology journals in 2013: A bibliometric study.

Poor reporting of research may limit critical appraisal and reproducibility, whereas adherence to reporting guidelines (RG) can guarantee completeness and transparency. We aimed to determine the explicit citing of RGs (CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE) in urogynecology articles in 2013, the requirements of relevant journals and a potential difference between urogynecology and general gynecology journals. All urogynecologic articles published between January and December 2013 in the journals NAU, IUJ, FPMRS, GREEN, AJOG, and BJOG were included. Issues were searched for systematic reviews, RCTs, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. Each electronic article was searched for the term PRISMA, CONSORT, or STROBE according to the study design. Instructions to Authors of the six journals were screened for requirement of using RGs. We included 296 articles (243 observational studies, 40 RCTs, and 13 systematic reviews). The use of PRISMA guidelines was explicitly declared in 54% of systematic reviews, CONSORT guidelines were referenced in 25% of RCTs and STROBE in 1.2% of observational studies. The use of CONSORT is required by all journals except FPMRS. PRISMA and STROBE are only compulsory in the journals GREEN, AJOG, and BJOG. The overall rate of explicit mentioning of RGs comparing urogynecology and general gynecology journals was 6.7% versus 7.1%, respectively. The explicit mentioning of RGs was on a relatively low level. A slightly higher adherence was recognized among general gynecology journals compared to urogynecology journals. Stronger efforts should be taken to further promote the use of RGs in urogynecology.