Family medicine journals’ adherence to reporting guidelines and trial registration: A systematic review

Reporting guidelines have been developed as a method of mitigating inadequate reporting quality. Reporting guidelines such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for randomized control trials have shown to improve the completeness of reporting in CONSORT-endorsing journals. Additionally, requiring the registration of clinical trials and systematic reviews have similarly demonstrated a reduced risk of overall bias in comparison to trials and reviews that were not registered. To our knowledge, the rate of endorsement and requirement of the two aforementioned tools in family medicine journals has not been ascertained. Thus, our objective was to determine the frequencies of recommendation or requirement of reporting guidelines for common study types within Family Medicine journals. In addition, we also sought to assess the rate of recommendation or requirement to register clinical trials and systematic reviews. We conducted a systematic review of family medicine journals’ policies and guidelines for authors in order to examine guideline use and adherence. Using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool, we identified 44 active, peer-reviewed journals in the “Family Practice” subcategory as of December 2022. Prior to data collection, email correspondence to the Editors-in-Chief was sent once a week for three weeks, to determine if the journal had any unaccepted article types. In a masked, duplicate fashion, statements regarding the requirement/recommendation of reporting guidelines for popular study designs were extracted from each journal’s “instructions to authors” webpage. Statements regarding clinical trial registration were obtained in a similar manner. Our search identified 44 journals that were included for data collection. The most commonly recommended guidelines were CONSORT (29/44, 65%), PRISMA (26/44, 59%), and STROBE (26/44, 59%). The most commonly required guidelines were PRISMA (7/44, 16%) and CONSORT (6/44, 14%). The least required guidelines were SPIRIT (1/44, 2.4%), SRQR (1/44, 2.5%), ARRIVE (1/44, 2.5%), and CHEERS (1/44, 2.7%). PRISMA and STROBE guidelines were more likely to be recommended or required in journals that mentioned the EQUATOR network (p < 0.001). With respect to study registration, twenty-nine out of the forty-four (66%) journals either recommended (4/44, 9%) or required (25/44, 57%) clinical trial registration. Although CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE guidelines were recommended or required by more than half of our included journals, a majority of the journals did not mention many of the other reporting guidelines. Explicit endorsement or requirement of study registration, as well as appropriate reporting guidelines, is necessary to improve the quality of research published in family medicine journals. Therefore, we recommend journal editors make an effort to impose tighter instructions to prospective authors by recommending/requiring these tools

Adherence to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration in psychiatry and mental health journals: Preliminary results of a cross-sectional analysis

Background: To reduce bias and advance research methods, reporting guidelines and trial registration regulations have been adopted by various journal submission instructions. For example, it has been demonstrated that the quality and reproducibility of data reporting in randomized control trials (RCTs) are improved when journals abide by guidelines such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Therefore, it is imperative for journals to specify reporting guidelines that authors should follow in order to publish their study. It is unclear how well reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration policies are adhered to by psychiatry and mental health journals. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to investigate psychiatry and mental health journals' practices regarding reporting guideline adoption and trial registration.Methods: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the top 100 psychiatry medical journals according to the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. In a masked, duplicate fashion, the “instructions to authors” webpage of each journal was assessed to identify whether journals required, recommended, or mentioned reporting guidelines outlined by the EQUATOR network. We also extracted data on whether journals recommended or required systematic review or clinical trial registration. To reduce the risk of bias, the article types accepted by each journal were confirmed via contacting the editorial team.Results: Only 37 out of the 100 journals mentioned the EQUATOR Network (37/100, 37%). The most referenced guidelines were CONSORT at 56% (53/95), followed by PRISMA at 48% (48/99). There is statistical significance between journals that mention both EQUATOR and CONSORT (p < .001), as well as between journals that mention both EQUATOR and PRISMA (p < .001). The MOOSE and QUOROM guidelines were the least mentioned as both were recommended/required in less than 10% of the psychiatry journals. Regarding study registration, 62 of the 100 journals (62%) either recommend or require clinical trial registration.Conclusions: Our results indicate the majority of psychiatry journals do not mention reporting guidelines or the EQUATOR network. CONSORT was the only guideline that was mentioned in over half of the evaluated journals. We recommend that the editors of psychiatry and mental health journals better adhere to the recommendation of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration by prospective authors

Lack of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration in physical medicine and rehabilitation

Background: Research surrounding Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR) is a growing field, yet previous studies have shown that the quality of evidence regarding research in PMR is deficient and can be attributed to poor methodological quality of the research and lack of reporting guidelines. Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration have been shown to improve scientific research by ameliorating bias and promoting transparency. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to assess the top 100 journals in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation to determine the requirement/recommendation for authorship use of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration.Methods: We identified the top 100 journals in PMR using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. In a blind, duplicate fashion, two investigators explored submission guidelines of each included journal for the presence or absence of statements germane to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. A standardized email was sent to each journal inquiring what study designs they do not accept for publishing to avoid unfair assessment. Additionally, we extracted journal name, five-year impact factor, region of journal publication, and mention of the ICMJE: an organization of medical journals setting publication and peer-review standards.Results: Clinical trial registration was required by 50% (50 journals) of the top 100 PMR journals. Of the reporting guidelines analyzed, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) was the least mentioned guideline of our included journals. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) was the most required guideline with 24% (24 journals) journals requiring its use and 38% (38 journals) recommending use. Overall, all guidelines analyzed fell below 50% adherence by the journals included in this study for investigation.Conclusion: Our investigation into the top 100 journals of PMR found that the majority of journals do not require reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. Further, we found the mention of specific reporting guidelines to be largely variable. Journals should adopt more rigorous policies in regard to adherence to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration in efforts to enhance research within PMR

Assessing Requirement Rates of Reporting guidelines and study registration in pediatric medical journals

Background: Adherence to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration are two methods of improving the quality of clinical research by mitigating biases and improving the transparency of research practices. To our knowledge, there is inadequate coverage on the requirements of reporting guideline adherence and clinical trial registration in pediatric medical journals. For this reason, we aim to investigate the adoption of these requirements in the journals’ instructions for authors in this medical specialty.Methods: Our systematic review assessed the top 100 peer-reviewed clinical pediatric journals that were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteSource tool. In a masked duplicate fashion, two investigators extracted data from each journal’s “instructions for authors” webpage concerning statements regarding the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and/or ICMJE, selected reporting guidelines as outlined by the EQUATOR Network, and clinical trial registration requirements. To eliminate bias, each journal’s editorial board was contacted to confirm which article types are accepted.Results: Of the 100 journals analyzed, 61 did not mention the EQUATOR Network (61/100). The most frequent guidelines reported were CONSORT and PRISMA. Thirty-one journals recommended the use of CONSORT guidelines (31/100), while 22 journals required its use (22/100). Twenty-nine journals recommended the use of PRISMA guidelines (29/100), while 12 journals required it (12/100). The least mentioned guidelines were QUOROM and MOOSE. We found that 91 journals did not mention (91/100) the use of QUOROM, and 93 journals did not mention the use of MOOSE (93/100). Clinical trial registration was recommended in 9 journals (9/100) and required in 49 journals (49/100). Overall, we found that none of the investigated reporting guidelines were reported in more than 50% of our journal sample.Conclusions: The majority of the pediatric journals analyzed scarcely required or recommended reporting guidelines. However, the journals that had a higher frequency of guideline reporting recommendations and requirements had higher rates of mentioning the EQUATOR Network. We recommend that pediatric journals consider enforcing the use of reporting guidelines as this is likely to cause a subsequent improvement in the quality of published results, as well as decrease the incidence of biases

Reporting guideline and clinical trial registration adherence in nephrology journals: Results of a preliminary systematic review

Background: Clinicians rely on relevant, high-quality research to inform their decisions regarding patient care. This research is held to a higher standard when journals implement reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration into article submission requirements. Due to the small number of nephrology journals — and the growing yet still limited research in the field — it is of the utmost importance for these journals to apply stringent guidelines to ensure the publication of limited bias and high quality research. However, the extent of reporting guideline adoption and clinical trial registration policies among nephrology journals is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the recommendation or requirement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration in nephrology journals.Methods: The 2021 Scopus CiteScore Tool was used to identify 62 journals in the “Nephrology” subcategory. In a masked, duplicate fashion, we examined the “Instructions for Authors'' webpage of each included journal to determine whether the following reporting guidelines — outlined by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health Research (EQUATOR) Network — were recommended or required: PRISMA, CONSORT, PRISMA-P, STARD, TRIPOD, MOOSE, ARRIVE, CHEERS, QUOROM, STROBE, CARE, SRQR, SPIRIT, and COREQ. Clinical trial registration statements were investigated in a similar fashion. Journal statements were documented as “Not mentioned”, “Recommended”, “Required”, or “Does Not Require”. Stata 17.0 was used to analyze the data. To minimize bias, all journals were contacted to confirm their accepted article types.Results: The most frequently mentioned guidelines were CONSORT, STROBE, and PRISMA. Of the 62 nephrology journals investigated, CONSORT was required by 11 (18%) and recommended by 34 (55%) journals. Furthermore, STROBE was required by 7 (11%) and recommended by 27 (44%) journals, and PRISMA was required by 8 (13%) and recommended by 18 (29%) journals. The least frequently mentioned guidelines were QUOROM (0/62, 0%), PRISMA-P (24/60, 40%), and MOOSE (26/62, 42%). Finally, 32 (52%) of journals required and 19 (31%) of journals recommended clinical trial registration.Discussion: These findings illuminate the variable adoption of reporting guidelines and inconsistent clinical trial registration policies across nephrology journals. We recommend that journal editors in this field require more author adherence to guidelines to improve the quality of research submitted to and published by their journals

Evaluation of adherence to reporting guidelines among immunology journals: A meta-epidemiological study

Background: Reporting guidelines and trial registration policies have been used to reduce bias and improve the quality of published research. It is unclear how well immunology and allergy journals adhere to the use of these reporting tools. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the policies of immunology and allergy journals regarding reporting guideline appropriation and clinical trial registration.Methods: A web-engine search was performed to identify the top 100 immunology and allergy journals to be included in the study per the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. Search returns were screened for inclusion criteria and data was extracted in a masked, duplicate manner. Statements regarding clinical trial registration and the use of reporting guidelines outlined by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) were extracted from each journal's “Instructions for Authors” section on their respective websites. Statements were recorded as “Not Mentioned”, “Recommended”, “Does Not Require”, or “Required.” Each journal was contacted by email to confirm what article types are accepted.Results: Of the 100 journals analyzed, 54 followed recommendations by the EQUATOR Network. Ninety five journals failed to mention QUOROM. Conversely, CONSORT was recommended by 58 journals and required by 11. PRISMA was only required by six journals and recommended by 32. Only 41 journals specifically required clinical trial registration and 24 failed to mention registration at all.Conclusion: Our results indicated there to be inconsistencies in the adoption of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration policies. Nearly half of the top 100 immunology and allergy journals did not mention an EQUATOR statement and less than half required clinical trial registration. We recommend that the editors of immunology and allergy journals encourage the use of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration policies to improve transparency and mitigate the potential for biases

Endocrinology, diabetes and metabolism journals adherence to reporting guidelines: A systematic review

Background: Clinicians rely on evidence-based research for clinical practice to ensure safe, efficacious patient care. Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration improve the quality of this research by increasing transparency and reducing the risk of biases. The extent of which endocrinology journals adopt the use of these tools is unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the recommendation/requirement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration in the top endocrinology journals.Methods: The top 100 journals in the “Endocrinology, Obesity, and Metabolism” subcategory were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. The “Instructions for Authors” of each journal was analyzed for statements regarding select reporting guidelines outlined by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health Research (EQUATOR) Network as well as clinical trial registration. Statements were recorded as “Not Mentioned”, “Recommended”, “Does Not Require”, or “Required.” To prevent unfair assessment, each journal was contacted to confirm the article types that are accepted.Results: Of 100 journals examined, ARRIVE was the most commonly mentioned guideline with 51 journals recommending adherence and 21 journals requiring adherence. QUOROM was the least frequently mentioned guideline with only three journals recommending its use and two requiring it. CONSORT was recommended by 40 journals and required by 36 journals. Finally, 77 journals required clinical trial registration.Conclusion: There are inconsistencies in the adoption of reporting guidelines in the top endocrinology journals. We recommend that journal editors in this field should more strongly enforce adherence to validated reporting tools to improve the quality of research that is published

Adherence to reporting guidelines and trial registration across transplantation journals

Background: Biomedical research significantly affects patient outcomes and changes clinical care. Further, this research has the requirement of being the utmost quality for medical professionals in their practice. Reporting guidelines for all various study designs and the official registration of clinical trials both help reduce bias and promote transparency within methodologies. To date, no study has assessed surgical transplantation journals for their promotion or omission of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate these journals and categorize the instructions for authors surrounding the mention, recommendation, or requirement of reporting guidelines and trial registration.Methods: A total of 47 peer-reviewed transplantation clinical journals were eligible for analysis according to the Scopus CiteScore tool. Two investigators extracted the journals’ title, five-year impact factor, and 18 reporting guidelines in a masked, duplicate manner from each journal’s “Instructions for Authors” section. We also extracted data on whether journals required clinical trial registration. Finally, we emailed journals once every three weeks in order to allow journal editors the opportunity to clarify the publication types they accept. Journals that did not accept certain study designs we omitted from analysis with respect to that study design’s reporting guideline.Results: A total of 13 (13 of 47; 28%) transplantation journals mentioned the EQUATOR Network: an online resource of validated and developing reporting guidelines. Of the 47 journals examined, CONSORT was the most commonly mentioned guideline with 11 (11 of 47; 23%) journals requiring it and 19 (19 of 47; 40%) journals recommending it. The QUOROM guideline was never mentioned by any journal. Finally, 24 (24/47; 51%) required and 9 (9/47; 19%) recommended the clinical trial registration, totaling 33 (33/47; 70%) mentioning clinical trial registration

Adherence to reporting guidelines across clinical neurology journals: A preliminary study

Background: High quality research is depended upon by clinicians for daily practice and advancement of medicine. Reporting guidelines (RG) and clinical trial registration help ensure that studies are performed in a transparent and unbiased manner. For example, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) is a RG for randomized control trials (RCTs) which has led to improved data reporting and increased usability by clinicians. Additionally, when authors submit a protocol to a public registry prior to commencement of their study, this increases transparency and is shown to reduce bias that may arise during the production of the study. Therefore, applying the use of RGs and clinical trial registration is indicated in all fields of medicine. However, the extent by which journals enforce these methods in the field of clinical Neurology is unknown. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to examine the proportion of journals that require or recommend adherence to RGs for their study designs in the field of clinical Neurology.Methods: We conducted a Systematic Review evaluating the top 100 journals in clinical Neurology according to the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. In a masked, duplicate fashion, data were obtained from each journal’s “instructions to authors” webpage regarding mention of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and requirement/recommendation of popular RGs as outlined by the EQUATOR Network. Statements regarding clinical trial registration were analyzed in a similar fashion. To mitigate the risk of bias, the editorial team of each journal was contacted to confirm the article types that are accepted.Results: Of the top 100 journals, 51/100 (51%) referenced the EQUATOR Network. The most referenced RG was CONSORT, with 42/100 (42%) journals recommending adherence and 22/100 (22%) requiring adherence. QUORUM was referenced in 2/100 (2.0%) journals, the least referenced RG in our study sample. Regarding Clinical Trial Registration, 12/100 (12%) journals recommended registration, while 53/100 (53%) required it.Conclusion: There are inconsistencies in the adoption of reporting guideline requirements/recommendations and clinical trial registration policies across the top clinical neurology journals. Therefore, we recommend that journal editors better enforce policies regarding these tools to improve the quality of research published

Inequities in epilepsy: A scoping review

Background: Epilepsy is a neurological disorder with a strong presentation worldwide. It is imperative that the health inequities tied to epilepsy are assessed and accounted for. Further, it is vital that healthcare providers are familiar with such inequities to supplement appropriate care for patients. We intend to complete a scoping review of current literature surrounding health inequities in epilepsy while providing recommendations for future research.Methods: During July of 2022, we searched MEDLINE and Ovid Embase to find published articles pertaining to epilepsy and health inequities. Authors received training then screened and data extracted in a masked, duplicate manner. Studies published within the timeframe of 2011-2021 in all countries were deemed appropriate. We screened 5,325 studies for titles and abstracts, then 56 studies for full text. We evaluated the inequities of race/ethnicity, sex or gender, income, occupation status, education level, under-resourced/rural, and LGBTQ+. To summarize the data and descriptive statistics of our study, we used Stata 17.0 (StataCorp, LLC, College Station, TX).Results: We obtained a sample size of 45 studies for study inclusion. The most reported health inequities were income (18/45, 40.0%), under-resourced/rural (15/45, 33.3%), race/ethnicity (15/45, 33.3%). The least reported health inequity was LGBTQ+ (0/45, 0.0%).Conclusion: The findings of our study suggest that gaps exist in literature concerning epilepsy and inequities. The inequities of income status, under-resourced/rural, and race/ethnicity were examined the most while LGBTQ+, occupation status, and sex or gender were examined the least. With the ultimate goal of more equitable and patient-centered care in mind, it is vital that future studies endeavor to fill in these determined gaps