Do surgery journals insist on reporting by CONSORT and PRISMA? A follow-up survey of 'instructions to authors'

A cross-sectional study on the endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration among immunology and allergy journals

BACKGROUND

Healthcare practitioners rely on research based on solid evidence for their clinical decisions, ensuring the provision of safe and effective patient care. The use of reporting guidelines and the registration of clinical trials enhance the reliability and credibility of research findings by promoting transparency and minimizing potential biases. However, it remains uncertain to what extent leading immunology and allergy journals have embraced these tools. This study aims to evaluate how commonly reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration are required and endorsed within leading immunology and allergy journals.

METHODS

We identified the top 100 journals in the subcategory of "Immunology and Allergy" using the Scopus CiteScore tool for the year 2021. We thoroughly reviewed the "Instructions for Authors" section of each journal, focusing on indications related to specific reporting guidelines as outlined by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network, as well as the practice of clinical trial registration. Our documentation categorized statements as "Not Mentioned," "Recommended," "Not Accepted," or "Required." The category "Not Accepted" specifically indicated that the journal explicitly did not accept the study designs associated with certain reporting guidelines, rather than implying bias against these guidelines. ensure equitable evaluation, we communicated with each journal to confirm the types of articles they accepted.

RESULTS

Among the 100 journals assessed, the CONSORT guideline emerged as the most frequently cited, with 60 journals recommending adherence and 13 requiring it. Conversely, the QUOROM guideline was the least commonly cited, with merely two journals recommending its adherence and none requiring it. Nineteen journals did not reference a single reporting guideline. Remarkably, clinical trial registration was required by 42 journals and recommended by 34.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals variation in the adoption of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration in immunology and allergy journals. While some journals strongly advocate for or require these practices, others do not emphasize them at all. This inconsistency affects research rigor and reproducibility, highlighting the need for stricter enforcement. Editors should encourage these practices to enhance transparency and minimize biases.

Publishing Trends, Motivations, and Obstacles Among Pediatric Surgeons: An International Survey on Research Dissemination and Peer Review Challenges

OBJECTIVE

 This study aims to assess publishing trends, motivations, preferences, and challenges among pediatric surgeons globally.

METHODS

 A cross-sectional survey was conducted among pediatric surgeons from multiple countries, distributed through the Trainees of European Pediatric Surgery (TEPS) network and social media. The anonymous questionnaire contained 26 items focusing on journal preferences, motivations for publishing, obstacles faced, peer-review experiences, open access publishing, and methods of research dissemination.

RESULTS

 A total of 172 responses were collected from pediatric surgeons in 33 countries. Most respondents worked in tertiary hospitals (88%) and were consultants or senior attendings (49%). Over half (65%) had published at least one scientific paper in the last 3 years. PubMed was the primary search engine (82%), and pediatric surgical journals were the preferred outlets for publication (87%). Key motivations for choosing a journal were impact factor (22%) and scope (19%), while publication costs (38%) and slow review processes (22%) were the primary deterrents. Open access publication options were used by more than half of respondents, with a third spending less than €2,500 on fees. Social media, particularly Instagram, emerged as a popular platform for research dissemination.

CONCLUSION

 Pediatric surgeons prefer publishing in specialized journals, with impact factor and scope being key drivers of journal choice. Publication costs and the peer-review process are the most significant obstacles. Efforts to address these challenges, such as reducing fees and enhancing the review process, are crucial for facilitating research dissemination in pediatric surgery.

Breaking barriers: Navigating the path to successful scientific research publication among faculty members in Egypt

Background

In the realm of academia, the publication of scientific research is not merely an act of dissemination; it serves as a pivotal milestone that signifies the culmination of rigorous investigation, critical analysis, and intellectual contribution.

Aim

To examine the challenges and barriers encountered by faculty members in the process of publishing their work.

Methods

The study utilized a descriptive cross-sectional design and was conducted from 1 March to 1 May 2022. A convenience sample of 358 faculty members from eight universities in Egypt, representing a diverse range of faculties. These faculties comprised five practical disciplines, namely, Nursing, Medicine, Science, Pharmacy, and Engineering, as well as three theoretical faculties including Al-Alsun (Languages), Arts, and Commerce. The universities involved in the study included Ain Shams, Cairo, Mansoura, Benha, Assiut, 6th of October, British University in Egypt (BUE), among others. Data were collected through an online questionnaire that included staff characteristics and barriers to scientific research and publishing. Hypothesis testing was conducted using appropriate statistical analysis methods (e.g., Chi-square test) to assess the relationships between faculty members' characteristics and barriers to publishing.

Results

The faculty staff in our study reported the highest barriers to publishing scientific research in the domains of the reviewing process (74%), institutional support (67%), and scientific publishing process (60.9%). Conversely, the lowest barriers were found in the domains of frustration after rejection (55.1%), scientific writing barriers (46.1%), and loss of passion and causation of publishing barriers (41.3%).

Conclusions

The results highlighted the need for increased support and resources to overcome these barriers and foster a positive culture of research and publishing in Egyptian universities.

Research waste among randomized controlled trials in ovarian cancer: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between trial characteristics and research waste in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ovarian cancer over the past two decades.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for RCTs registered between 2000 and 2020 using the keyword ovarian cancer. Publication status of RCTs was determined through systematic searches of the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Reporting adequacy was evaluated using the CONSORT checklist. Design limitations were assessed based on the risk of bias and whether a relevant systematic review was cited in the manuscript. The primary outcome was research waste, defined as an RCT that was unpublished, inadequately reported, or had avoidable design limitations.

RESULTS

Among the 117 RCTs evaluated, 89 (76.1 %) were published as of February 14, 2024. Published RCTs were more likely to be pharmacological, conducted in North America or Europe, have a multicenter or multinational design, have a larger sample size (over 200 participants), and receive external funding (P < 0.05). Among the published RCTs, 73 (82.0 %) and 24 (27.0 %) were considered adequately reported and free from design limitations, respectively. Overall, 96 of the 117 RCTs (82.1 %) were associated with research waste. Factors independently associated with research waste were an open-label design and smaller sample size (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Over 80 % of the RCTs on ovarian cancer demonstrated at least one feature of research waste. Future efforts should focus on minimizing the potential waste in unblinded small-scale RCTs.

Librarian involvement in systematic reviews was associated with higher quality of reported search methods: a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered the gold standard of evidence, but many published SRs are of poor quality. This study identifies how librarian involvement in SRs is associated with quality-reported methods and examines the lack of motivation for involving a librarian in SRs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched databases for SRs that were published by a first or last author affiliated to a Vancouver hospital or biomedical research site and published between 2015 and 2019. Corresponding authors of included SRs were contacted through an e-mail survey to determine if a librarian was involved in the SR. If a librarian was involved in the SR, the survey asked at what level the librarian was involved and if a librarian was not involved, the survey asked why. Quality of reported search methods was scored independently by two reviewers. A linear regression model was used to determine the association between quality of reported search methods scores and the level at which a librarian was involved in the study.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety one SRs were included in this study and 118 (62%) of the SRs authors indicated whether a librarian was involved in the SR. SRs that included a librarian as a co-author had a 15.4% higher quality assessment score than SRs that did not include a librarian. Most authors (27; 75%) who did not include a librarian in their SR did not do so because they did not believe it was necessary.

CONCLUSION

Higher level of librarian involvement in SRs is correlated with higher scores in reported search methods. Greater advocacy or changes at the policy level is necessary to increase librarian involvement in SRs and as a result the quality of their search methods.

Increased endorsement of TRIPOD and other reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals: survey of instructions to authors

OBJECTIVES

To assess the endorsement of reporting guidelines by high impact factor journals over the period 2017-2022, with a specific focus on the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched the online 'instructions to authors' of high impact factor medical journals in February 2017 and in January 2022 for any reference to reporting guidelines and TRIPOD in particular.

RESULTS

In 2017, 205 out of 337 (61%) journals mentioned any reporting guideline in their instructions to authors and in 2022 this increased to 245 (73%) journals. A reference to TRIPOD was provided by 27 (8%) journals in 2017 and 67 (20%) in 2022. Of those journals mentioning TRIPOD in 2022, 22% provided a link to the TRIPOD website and 60% linked to TRIPOD information on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network website. Twenty-five percent of the journals required adherence to TRIPOD.

CONCLUSION

About three-quarters of high-impact medical journals endorse the use of reporting guidelines and 20% endorse TRIPOD. Transparent reporting is important in enhancing the usefulness of health research and endorsement by journals plays a critical role in this.

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).

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.

An Evaluation of Reporting Guidelines and Clinical Trial Registry Requirements Among Addiction Medicine Journals

Context

Robust methodology and ethical reporting are paramount for quality scientific research, but recently, that quality in addiction research has been questioned. Avenues to improve such research quality include adherence to reporting guidelines and proper usage of clinical trial registries. Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registries have been shown to lead researchers to more ethical and transparent methodology.

Objectives

To investigate the reporting guideline and clinical trial registration policies of addiction research journals and identify areas of improvement.

Methods

We used Google Scholar Metrics' h-5 index to identify the top 20 addiction research journals. We then examined the instructions for authors from each journal to identify whether they required, recommended, or made no mention of trial registration and reporting guidelines, including the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Case Reports (CARE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR), Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE), Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT), Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ), Transparent Reporting of a Multivariate Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. We performed the same analysis regarding requirements for clinical trial registration.

Results

Of the 20 journals included in this study, 10 journals (50%) did not require adherence to any reporting guidelines. Trial registration followed a similar trend; 15 journals (75%) did not mention any form of trial or systematic review registration, and ClinicalTrials.gov was only recommended by only 1 journal (5%).

Conclusions

Among top addiction medicine journals, required adherence to reporting guidelines and clinical trial registry policies remains substandard. A step toward fulfilling the National Institute on Drug Abuses' call for improvement in transparency and reproducibility within addiction research should include all journals adopting a strict reporting guideline and clinical trial registry adherence policy.

High impact nutrition and dietetics journals' use of publication procedures to increase research transparency

BACKGROUND

The rigor and integrity of the published research in nutrition studies has come into serious question in recent years. Concerns focus on the use of flexible data analysis practices and selective reporting and the failure of peer review journals to identify and correct these practices. In response, it has been proposed that journals employ editorial procedures designed to improve the transparency of published research.

OBJECTIVE

The present study examines the adoption of editorial procedures designed to improve the reporting of empirical studies in the field of nutrition and dietetics research.

DESIGN

The instructions for authors of 43 journals included in Quartiles 1 and 2 of the Clarivate Analytics' 2018 Journal Citation Report category Nutrition and Dietetics were reviewed. For journals that published original research, conflict of interest disclosure, recommendation of reporting guidelines, registration of clinical trials, registration of other types of studies, encouraging data sharing, and use of the Registered Reports were assessed. For journals that only published reviews, all of the procedures except clinical trial registration were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-three journals published original research and 10 published only reviews. Conflict of interest disclosure was required by all 33 original research journals. Use of guidelines, trial registration and encouragement of data sharing were mentioned by 30, 27 and 25 journals, respectively. Registration of other studies was required by eight and none offered Registered Reports as a publication option at the time of the review. All 10 review journals required conflict of interest disclosure, four recommended data sharing and three the use of guidelines. None mentioned the other two procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

While nutrition journals have adopted a number of procedures designed to improve the reporting of research findings, their limited effects likely result from the mechanisms through which they influence analytic flexibility and selective reporting and the extent to which they are properly implemented and enforced by journals.

The Effect of Hypothyroidism on Bone Loss at Dental Implants

Hypothyroidism (HT) is an endocrine disorder characterized by abnormally reduced thyroid gland activity and is most commonly of autoimmune etiology. HT is associated with alterations in bone metabolism, and HT patients typically experience decreased bone resorption. The objective of this study was to use dental implants as standardized reference markers to compare the extent of alveolar bone loss in implant patients with and without HT. We examined medical and dental history records and radiographic data from 635 patients receiving 1480 implants during 2000–2017. The rate of bone loss was calculated from differences in radiographic bone levels over time, corrected for radiographic distortion. Peri-implant bone loss from patients with HT was significantly lower than for those without HT (t1252= −3.42; 95% confidence interval= 0.47–1.73; P &lt; .001; M = 0.53 and 1.63 mm/yr, respectively). A similar relationship persisted after excluding smokers and diabetics and after additionally excluding those on systemic steroids, hormone replacement therapy, hormone medications, or autoimmune diseases other than HT. Our data suggest that patients with HT have a decreased rate of bone loss around dental implants and may not be at increased risk for dental implant failure. The decreased bone metabolic rate among patients with HT might contribute to those findings.

The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews in Japanese Physical Therapy Journals

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in Japanese in the field of physical therapy.

METHODS

The study design was a bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews. Two Japanese physical therapy journals (Physical Therapy Japan and Rigakuryoho Kagaku) were analysed using J-STAGE. The inclusion criterion was that articles were systematic reviews. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to score the reporting quality of eligible systematic reviews. The quality assessment was performed by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

Of the 1578 articles identified, thirteen articles were included in this study. The median score of checklist items adequately adhered to across the included studies was 12 (range, 7-17). None of the studies adhered to the structured summary or additional analysis PRISMA items. The intention of bias assessment across studies was reported in only three studies (23%), and only two of these three reported the results.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of systematic reviews published in Japanese physical therapy journals was suboptimal. Therefore, readers should critically appraise the contents of systematic reviews. It is recommended that journals should strictly require their authors to adhere to reporting guidelines.

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of surgical randomized clinical trials

Background

Well designed and conducted systematic reviews are essential to clinical practice. Surgical intervention is more complex than medical intervention when considering special items related to procedures. There has been no cross‐sectional study of the reporting quality of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials focused on special items relating to surgical interventions.

Methods

A cross‐sectional survey of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials published in 2007 and 2017 was undertaken via a PubMed search. Quality of reporting was assessed by the PRISMA checklist, with intervention details containing 27 items. Univariable and multivariable linear regression was used to explore factors in the checklist as indicators of reporting quality.

Results

A total of 204 systematic reviews were identified. The median score for the PRISMA checklist was 22 (i.q.r. 20–24), and systematic reviews published in 2017 had a significantly higher median score than those from 2007 (22 (i.q.r. 21–24) versus 20 (17–22); P < 0·001). Among the 27 items, 15 were reported adequately and three were reported poorly (in less than 50 per cent of reports). The proportion of other items reported ranged from 54·4 to 77·9 per cent. In multivariable analysis, systematic reviews published in 2017 (coefficient 0·59, 95 per cent c.i. 0·50 to 0·69) and Cochrane reviews (coefficient 0·67, 0·55 to 0·81) were associated with better reporting.

Conclusion

The quality of reporting of systematic reviews of surgical randomized trials has improved in the past 10 years. Some information relating to specific surgical interventions is, however, still reported poorly.

Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts Published in Leading Neurosurgical Journals: A Research on Research Study

BACKGROUND

Systematic review (SR) abstracts are frequently relied upon to guide clinical decision-making. However, there is mounting evidence that the quality of abstract reporting in the medical literature is suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

To appraise SR abstract reporting quality in neurosurgical journals and identify factors associated with improved reporting.

METHODS

This study systematically surveyed SR abstracts published in 8 leading neurosurgical journals between 8 April 2007 and 21 August 2017. Abstracts were identified through a search of the MEDLINE database and their reporting quality was determined in duplicate using a tool derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) statement. All SR abstracts that provided comparison between treatment strategies were eligible for inclusion. Descriptive statistics were utilized to identify factors associated with improved reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 257 abstracts were included in the analysis, with a mean of 22.8 (±25.3) included studies. The overall quality of reporting in included abstracts was suboptimal, with a mean score of 53.05% (±11.18). Reporting scores were higher among abstracts published after the release of the PRISMA-A guidelines (M = 56.52; 21.74-73.91) compared with those published beforehand (M = 47.83; 8.70-69.57; U = 4346.00, z = -4.61, P < .001). Similarly, both word count (r = 0.338, P < .001) and journal impact factor (r = 0.199, P = .001) were associated with an improved reporting score.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the overall reporting quality of abstracts in leading neurosurgical journals requires improvement. Strengths include the large number abstracts assessed, and its weaknesses include the fact that only neurosurgery-specific journals were surveyed. We recommend that attention be turned toward strengthening abstract submission and peer-review processes.

Reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage: compliance with PRISMA guidelines

Systematic reviews have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice and policy; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and quality of SRs of interventions to improve immunization coverage in different settings. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at improving vaccination coverage using the recommended Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline.PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched to identify SRs of interventions to improve immunization coverage, indexed up to May 2016. Two authors independently screened the search output, assessed study eligibility, and extracted data from eligible SRs using a 27-item data collection form derived from PRISMA. Discrepancies in reviews assessments were resolved by discussion and consensus.A total of 57 reviews were included in this study with a mean percentage of applicable PRISMA items that were met across all studies of 66% (range 19-100%) and median compliance of 70%. 39 out of the 57 reviews were published after the release of the PRISMA statement in 2009. Highest compliance was observed in items related to the "description of rational", "description of eligibility criteria", "synthesis of results" and "provision of a general interpretation of the results" (items #3, #6, #14 and #26, respectively). Compliance was poorest in the items "describing summary of evidence" (item 24, 19%), "describing indication of review protocol and registration" (item 5, 26%) and "describing results of risk of bias across studies (item 22, 33%).The overall reporting quality of systematic reviews of interventions to improve vaccination coverage requires significant improvement. There remains a need for additional research targeted at addressing potential barriers to compliance and strategies to improve compliance with PRISMA guideline.

Assessing the Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Craniofacial Surgery Journals With the CONSORT Statement

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are gold standard assessments for healthcare interventions. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was published to maximize RCT reporting transparency. The authors conducted a systematic review to assess current compliance of RCTs published within craniofacial surgery with the CONSORT statement.

METHODS

The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor Report 2016 was consulted to identify craniofacial surgery journals. PubMed was used to search for recent RCTs published within the 5 journals identified. Two independent researchers assessed each study for inclusion and performed data extraction. The primary outcome was compliance of each RCT with the CONSORT statement. Secondary outcomes were the pathology and interventions examined, impact factor, multi-versus-single center, number of authors, and publication date.

RESULTS

Eighty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, across which a median of 56% (range 33%-94%) applicable CONSORT items were reported. The 5 least reported items were: trial design (3a); registration number and name of trial registry (23); who generated random allocation sequences, enrolled participants, and assigned participants to interventions (10); sample size determination (7a); mentioning "randomized trial" in the title (1a).

CONCLUSION

The compliance of craniofacial surgery RCTs with the CONSORT statement requires improvement. Areas in need are identified, and methods to improve reporting transparency, are discussed.

Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement

BACKGROUND

Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement.

METHODS

The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.

Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer's disease before and after PRISMA introduction

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are distillation of current best available evidence, but are potentially prone to bias. The bias of SRs and MAs comes from sampling bias, selection bias and within study bias. So, their reporting quality is especially important as it may directly influence their utility for clinicians, nurses, patients and policy makers. The SRs and MAs on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been increasingly published over the past decade, but the reporting quality of article has not been evaluated after the introduction of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) Statement.

METHODS

According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we searched the databases including PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library from inception through October 16th 2018. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. The PRISMA checklist was adopted to evaluate reporting quality. Comparisons were made between studies published before (2001-2009) and after (2011-2018) its introduction.

RESULTS

A total of 77 eligible articles, 18 (23.4%) were published before the PRISMA Statement and 59 (76.6%) were published afterwards. There was higher score after publication of the PRISMA Statement than before (20.83 ± 3.78 vs 17.11 ± 4.56, P <  0.05). There was an improvement in the following items after the PRISMA statement was released (P <  0.05): title (item 1, 50.0% vs 74.6%, OR = 3.10, 95CI%: 1.00-9.61), search (item8, 27.8% vs 57.6%,OR = 3.25, 95CI%: 1.14-9.28), study selection (item 9, 44.4% vs 81.4%,OR = 6.28, 95CI%: 1.93-20.37), Data collection process (item 10, 50.0% vs 76.3%,OR = 3.45, 95CI%:1.10-10.84), risk of bias in individual studies (item 12, 50.0% vs 83.1%, OR = 5.78, 95CI%:1.71-19.52), risk of bias across studies (item15, 5.6% vs 28.8%,OR = 3.60, 95CI%:1.04-12.43), study characteristics (item 18, 77.8% vs 98.3%, OR = 28.13, 95CI%:3.35-236.19), risk of bias with studies (item 19, 50.0% vs 83.1%, OR = 5.78, 95CI%:1.71-19.52), results in individual studies (item 20, 72.2% vs 94.9%, OR = 11.09, 95CI%:1.99-61.82), conclusions (item 26, 77.8% vs 98.3%, OR = 28.13, 95CI%:3.35-236.19). After controlling for the confounding factors, there were higher PRISMA score for systematic reviews including meta-analyses, protocol or registration, can't answer of RCT, journal source of SCI (Science Citation Index), manuscript length > 13 page and funding support.

CONCLUSION

Since the publication of the PRISMA Statement, there has been an improvement in the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs on nursing interventions in patients with AD. More endorsement by journals of the report guideline for SRs/MAs may improve articles reporting quality, and the dissemination of reliable evidence to nurses. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors to become more acquainted with and to more strictly adhere to the PRISMA checklist.

Requirements for trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in critical care journals: a meta-epidemiological study of journals' instructions for authors

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to investigate the policies of critical care journals with regard to guideline adoption and clinical trial registration to understand the extent to which journals use these mechanisms to improve reporting practices.

METHODS

The current study's sample comprised 37 critical care journals cataloged in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2015 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index critical care subcategory. A web-based data abstraction was performed to identify which journals required, recommended, or made no mention of 17 different reporting guidelines. 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 by using STATA 13.

RESULTS

Of the 37 critical care journals, 15 (15/37, 40.5%) did not mention a single guideline within their instructions for authors, whereas the remaining 22 (22/37, 59.5%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research were not mentioned by any journals, whereas the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (26/37, 70.3%) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (17/37, 45.9%) were mentioned most often. Of the 37 critical care journals, 21 (21/37, 56.8%) did not mention trial or review registration, but the remaining 16 (16/37, 43.2%) mentioned at least one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by six (6/37, 16.2%) journals, whereas the WHO registry was mentioned by five (5/37, 13.5%). Sixteen (16/37, 43.2%) journals mentioned trial registration through a registry platform.

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of the journals in our sample did not mention a reporting guideline, and only a small percentage of journals required the registration of clinical trials as a condition for publication. Implementing these two mechanisms may limit bias, and their adoption should be considered by journal editors in critical care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000024081.

Assessing quality of randomized trials supporting guidelines for laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have highlighted the risk of bias and the fragility of results in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical practice guidelines created by the Society for Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) for fragility, statistical power, and risk of bias.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We screened the SAGES clinical practice guideline references for qualifying RCTs. RCTs were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool 2.0. We used the fragility index and fragility quotient to evaluate the robustness of trial results and conducted a power analysis using G*Power to determine if trials were adequately powered.

RESULTS

Twenty-two (40.7%) of the 54 trials that we assessed were rated as having a high risk of bias, 17 (31.5%) were rated as having a low risk of bias, and 15 (27.8%) were rated as having some concerns. The median fragility index was 2.5 (interquartile range 1-7). The median fragility quotient was 0.021 (interquartile range 0.003-0.045). Mean sample size was 108, and the mean loss to follow-up was eight patients. Eight of 33 trials (24.2%) were found to be underpowered according to the sample size used in the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines created by SAGES are supported by RCTs that are frequently fragile or underpowered or have a high risk of bias. Future RCTs should utilize the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement, implement strategies to minimize loss to follow-up, and use properly powered sample sizes.

Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement

Background

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important methods to summarize published research. Studies of ophthalmology may present additional challenges because of their potentially complex study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on topics in ophthalmology to determine compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. We assessed articles published between 2010 and 2015 in the five major relevant journals with the highest impact factors.

Methods

The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2015 in the following 5 major ophthalmology journals: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Survey of Ophthalmology. The screening, identification, and scoring of articles were independently performed by two teams, and the results were submitted to statistical analysis to determine medians, ranges, and 95% CIs.

Results

A total of 115 articles were included. The median compliance was 15 out of 27 items (56%), the range was 5–26 (26–96%), and the inter-quartile range was 10 (37%). Compliance was highest in items related to the ‘description of rationale’ (item 3, 100%) and sequentially lower in ‘the general interpretation of results’ (item 26, 96%) and ‘the inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract’ (item 2, 90%). Compliance was poorest in the items ‘indication of review protocol and registration’ (item 5, 9%), ‘specification of risk of biases that may affect the cumulative evidence’ (item 15, 24%), and ‘description of clear objectives in the introduction’ (item 4, 26%).

Conclusion

The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology should be significantly improved. While we recommend the use of the PRISMA criteria as a guideline before journal submission, additional research aimed at identifying potential barriers to compliance may be required to improve compliance with PRISMA guidelines.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0450-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The PRISMA Statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve transparency of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Seven extensions to the PRISMA Statement have been published to address the reporting of different types or aspects of SRs, and another eight are in development. We performed a scoping review to map the research that has been conducted to evaluate the uptake and impact of the PRISMA Statement and extensions. We also synthesised studies evaluating how well SRs published after the PRISMA Statement was disseminated adhere to its recommendations.

METHODS

We searched for meta-research studies indexed in MEDLINE® from inception to 31 July 2017, which investigated some component of the PRISMA Statement or extensions (e.g. SR adherence to PRISMA, journal endorsement of PRISMA). One author screened all records and classified the types of evidence available in the studies. We pooled data on SR adherence to individual PRISMA items across all SRs in the included studies and across SRs published after 2009 (the year PRISMA was disseminated).

RESULTS

We included 100 meta-research studies. The most common type of evidence available was data on SR adherence to the PRISMA Statement, which has been evaluated in 57 studies that have assessed 6487 SRs. The pooled results of these studies suggest that reporting of many items in the PRISMA Statement is suboptimal, even in the 2382 SRs published after 2009 (where nine items were adhered to by fewer than 67% of SRs). Few meta-research studies have evaluated the adherence of SRs to the PRISMA extensions or strategies to increase adherence to the PRISMA Statement and extensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Many studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result of these suggest that reporting of many items is suboptimal. An update of the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline, may improve the transparency of SRs.

Trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in cardiovascular journals

Objective

This study investigated the policies of cardiac and cardiovascular system journals concerning clinical trial registration and guideline adoption to understand how frequently journals use these mechanisms to improve transparency, trial reporting and overall study quality.

Methods

We selected the top 20 (by impact factor) journals cited in the subcategory ‘Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems’ of the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports to extract journal policies concerning the 17 guidelines we identified. In addition, trial and systematic review registration adherence statements were extracted. 300 randomised controlled trials published in 2016 in the top 20 journals were searched for clinical trial registry numbers and CONSORT diagrams.

Results

Of the 19 cardiac and cardiovascular system journals included in our analysis, eight journals (42%) did not require or recommend trial or review registration. Seven (37%) did not recommend or require a single guideline within their instructions to authors. Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials guidelines (10/19, 53%) were recommended or required most often. Of the trials surveyed, 122/285 (42.8%) published a CONSORT diagram in their manuscript, while 236/292 (80.8%) published a trial registry number.

Discussion

Cardiac and cardiovascular system journals infrequently require, recommend or enforce the use of reporting guidelines. Furthermore, too few require or enforce the use of clinical trial registration. Cardiology journal editors should consider guideline adoption due to their potential to limit bias and increase transparency.

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.

Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Periodontal Diseases in Journal Abstracts-A Cross-sectional Survey and Bibliometric Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by proper design, conduct, analysis, and reporting provide reliable information in clinical care. Reporting of RCT abstracts is of equal importance as there is evidence that many clinicians will change their clinical decisions based on RCT abstracts. The reporting quality of RCT abstracts has been suboptimal. It is not clear whether the reporting quality is related to the journal metrics. The main objective of this study is to conduct a cross-sectional survey to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs of periodontal diseases in journal abstracts and to perform a bibliometric analysis. The null hypothesis was that there is no association between the journal metrics (5-year impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and Article Influence Score), abstract metrics (word count, and number of authors), journal endorsement of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), and the overall quality of reporting of CONSORT RCT abstract-modified checklist questions.

MATERIALS

CONSORT RCT abstract extension checklist with explanation and elaboration was used and modified to assess the quality of reporting of RCT abstracts of periodontal diseases in the journal abstracts in the year 2012. Bibliometric analysis of journal metrics (5-year impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and Article Influence Score) and abstract metrics (number of authors and abstract word count), the geographic distribution, and the CONSORT-endorsing journal abstracts was compared with the reporting quality of RCT abstracts in periodontal diseases. Calibration and intrarater agreement were done before the data collection and analysis. A second reviewer was consulted for independent evaluation and clarification as needed. For descriptive analysis, the values of continuous variables were expressed as median and interquartile ranges (IQRs) and as proportion percent for binary categorical variables. For association analysis between the binary (yes/no) response variable and the continuous variable, the Mann-Whitney test (for independent samples) was used. For examining the association between 2 categorical variables, Fisher's exact test was used. The chi-square test was performed to examine the association between 2 sets of binary response variables (yes/no). A P value of < .05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were conducted using SAS, version 9.4.

RESULTS

A total of 198 RCT abstracts of periodontal diseases in the year 2012 from 57 journals were included in the study. Fifteen journals, listed as endorsers of CONSORT, contributed 108 RCT abstracts. Four journals (Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Clinical Oral Implants Research, and European Journal of Oral Implantology) contributed 84 of 198 RCT abstracts in 2012. European countries contributed the majority (n = 81, 40.91%) of RCT abstracts. Among 31 countries in this study, United States contributed the most RCTs (n = 28, 14.14%) followed by India (24, 12.12%), Italy (n = 22, 11.11%), and Brazil (n = 20, 10.1%). The frequency of journal metrics were 5-year impact factor (median 2.316; IQR: 1.439-2.970); Eigenfactor score (0.00474; 0.00202-0.01395); and Article Influence Score (0.553; 0.382-0.755). The number of authors in 198 RCT abstracts ranged between 2 and 20 (median n = 5, IQR: 4-6), whereas the word count ranged between 48 and 569 (median 235, IQR: 205-269). All RCT abstracts reported the experimental interventions (checklist question #5, frequency 100%). Some items were almost always reported-participant eligibility criteria (#3, 99%); comparison interventions (#6, 99.5%); specific objective or hypothesis (#7, 99.5%); primary outcome (#8, 99.5%); and reporting trial results as a summary (#16, 98.5%). All RCT abstracts never reported how the allocations were concealed (#11, 0) and the source of funding for the trials (#23, 0). Some items were almost always never reported-the number of participants included in the analysis for each intervention (#15, 2%); trial registration number (#21, 2.5%); name of trial register (#22, 2.5%); and how the randomization or sequence generation was done (#22). Dismal reporting was noted in many checklist questions including the identification of the study as randomized in the title #1, 51%; design of the trial #2, 32.8%; trial setting #4, 3.5%; randomization #10, 3.5%; blinding #12, 21.7%; details about blinding #13, 8.1%; number of participants randomized to each intervention #14, 26.3%; effect size #17, 13.6%; precision of the estimate of the effect #18, 6.1%; and adverse effects #19, 14.1%. Strikingly, there was a very high reporting of statistical significance #25, 92.4%. European countries, in particular, reported relatively better than other countries in essential questions such as #17 effect size reporting, and #18 precision (uncertainty), which have been largely unreported by rest of the countries. Finally, despite the majority of RCTs published in 2012 were by CONSORT-endorsing journals, there was no difference in the quality of reporting in majority of checklist items when compared with journals not listed as CONSORT endorsers. With few exceptions, there was no statistically significant association between the majority of the CONSORT RCT abstract checklist questions and the journal metrics and abstract metrics analyzed in this study. Unexpectedly, lower ranking journals in journal metrics reported certain essential checklist questions relatively better.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of RCT of periodontal diseases in the journal abstracts published in 2012 needs substantial improvement. These items have been laid out in this study to help all stakeholders-authors, clinicians, researchers, peer reviewers, journal editors, and publishers to take note and help with the improvement of the same. Despite few significant associations in the bibliometric factors analyzed with better reporting, the results overall led to the failure to reject the null hypothesis that there is no association between the journal metrics, word count, and number of authors and the quality of reporting of CONSORT RCT abstract-modified checklist questions.

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.

Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study

Background

As publishing is essential but competitive for researchers, difficulties in writing and submitting medical articles to biomedical journals are disabling. The DIAzePAM (Difficultés des Auteurs à la Publication d’Articles Médicaux) survey aimed to assess the difficulties experienced by researchers in the AP-HP (Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, i.e., Paris Hospitals Board, France), the largest public health institution in Europe, when preparing articles for biomedical journals. The survey also aimed to assess researchers’ satisfaction and perceived needs.

Methods

A 39-item electronic questionnaire based on qualitative interviews was addressed by e-mail to all researchers registered in the AP-HP SIGAPS (Système d’Interrogation, de Gestion et d’Analyse des Publications Scientifiques) bibliometric database.

Results

Between 28 May and 15 June 2015, 7766 researchers should have received and read the e-mail, and 1191 anonymously completed the questionnaire (<45 years of age: 63%; women: 55%; physician: 81%; with PhD or Habilitation à Diriger des recherches––accreditation to direct research––: 45%). 94% of respondents had published at least one article in the previous 2 years. 76% of respondents felt they were not publishing enough, mainly because of lack of time to write (79%) or submit (27%), limited skills in English (40%) or in writing (32%), and difficulty in starting writing (35%). 87% of respondents would accept technical support, especially in English reediting (79%), critical reediting (63%), formatting (52%), and/or writing (41%), to save time (92%) and increase high-impact-factor journal submission and acceptance (75%). 79% of respondents would appreciate funding support for their future publications, for English reediting (56%), medical writing (21%), or publication (38%) fees. They considered that this funding support could be covered by AP-HP (73%) and/or by the added financial value obtained by their department from previous publications (56%).

Conclusions

The DIAzePAM survey highlights difficulties experienced by researchers preparing articles for biomedical journals, and details room for improvement.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0371-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An assessment of the compliance of Randomised controlled trials published in craniofacial surgery journals with the CONSORT statement: A systematic review protocol

Introduction

The role of clinical trials in medicine is expanding, particularly in surgery. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard evidence for high-quality assessment of healthcare interventions. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidance has been published to maximise RCT reporting transparency. This paper outlines the study protocol for a systematic review that will assess the current compliance of RCTs published within craniofacial surgery with the CONSORT criteria. The aims are to identify areas where reporting can be improved to ensure craniofacial surgery is guided by high-quality evidence.

Methods and analysis

This protocol is compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and meta-Analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Craniofacial surgery RCTs will be identified by searching within craniofacial surgery journals. Five journals from the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor Report 2016 included 'cranio' in their title and were included. MEDLINE PubMed will be used to search all RCTs published in these journals. The search strategy is described within this protocol. It will be limited to articles written in English, conducted on humans, and published in the last five years. Two independent researchers will assess each study for inclusion and will perform the data extraction. The researchers will assess compliance of each RCT with the 25-item CONSORT Statement checklist as the primary outcome. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus or third author arbitration. Secondary outcomes to be extracted include the pathology and interventions examined, and indices of RCT quality. The systematic review will be compliant with PRISMA guidelines. The review has been registered a priori with the Registry of Systematic Reviews/meta-analyses (UIN: reviewregistry219).

Ethics and dissemination

This systematic review will be conducted in line with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Interventions. The intent is to publish in a peer-reviewed journal and present the data at relevant conferences.

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.

Hematology journals do not sufficiently adhere to reporting guidelines: a systematic review

Essentials Reporting guidelines and trial/review registration aim to limit bias in research. We systematically reviewed hematology journals to examine the use of these policies. Forty-eight percent of journals made no use of these policies. Improving the use of reporting guidelines will improve research for all stakeholders.

SUMMARY

Background Reporting guidelines and trial/review registration policies have been instituted in order to minimize bias and improve research practices. Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the policies of hematology journals concerning reporting guideline adoption and trial/review registration. Methods We performed a web-based data abstraction from the Instructions for Authors of 67 hematology journals catalogued in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports to identify whether each journal required, recommended or made no mention of the following reporting guidelines: EQUATOR, ICMJE, CONSORT, MOOSE, QUOROM, PRISMA, STARD, STROBE, ARRIVE and CARE. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial or systematic review registration. We e-mailed editors three times to determine which types of studies their journal accepts. Results Forty-eight per cent (32/67) of hematology journals do not adhere to any reporting guidelines. For responding journals, the QUOROM statement, MOOSE, CARE and PROSPERO were the least often mentioned, whereas the ICMJE guidelines, CONSORT statement and general trial registration were most often mentioned. Discussion Reporting guidelines are infrequently required or recommended by hematology journals. Furthermore, few require clinical trial or systematic review database registration. A higher rate of adherence to reporting guidelines can prevent bias from entering the literature. Participation from all stakeholders, including authors and journal editors, to improve reporting guideline and policy practices is required.

Fistula in Cleft Lip and Palate Patients-A Systematic Scoping Review

AIMS

(1) Assess the level of available evidence regarding fistula occurrence in cleft lip and palate patients, (2) identify main research areas in the original studies, (3) evaluate the quality of original studies, and (4) summarize the evidence.

METHODS

Two independent researchers searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, Web of Knowledge, Web of Science and EMBASE, the Grey literature, and the reference lists of main references. The level of evidence was assessed based on study design and according to the Hierarchy of Evidence. The quality assessment was done using the adapted Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklists and a validity scoring system. Main findings were summarized, and fistula rates were compared between early and more recent articles, also between high-quality and low-quality studies.

RESULTS

The systematic search and relevance assessment identified a total of 127 sources of evidence. The overall level of evidence was weak because it was dominated by small studies (<30 subjects), retrospective cohort studies, and case series. Main research areas were either: (1) focused on surgeries or (2) focused on risk determinants associated with fistula occurrence. Recent reports were of higher quality than the older ones, but the overall quality in the majority of reports was low. Knowledge synthesis demonstrated a wide range of rates for primary fistula (0-78%). No significant difference was found in the fistula rates of older studies compared with more recent studies or among different quality studies. Multiple risk determinants were studied and age at surgery, surgeon's experience, type and severity of cleft were the most frequently examined risk determinants. However, findings concerning different risk determinants and fistula occurrence were not consistent.

CONCLUSIONS

The research mainly focused on surgeries and fistula-related risk determinants. The available evidence was low level and of poor quality. No consistent pattern between fistula occurrence and any of the risk determinants could be detected. Reported fistula rates did not differ significantly when comparing older studies with more recent studies or when high-quality studies were compared with low-quality studies.

Longitudinal analysis of reporting and quality of systematic reviews in high-impact surgical journals

BACKGROUND

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement aims to optimize the reporting of systematic reviews. The performance of the PRISMA Statement in improving the reporting and quality of surgical systematic reviews remains unclear.

METHODS

Systematic reviews published in five high-impact surgical journals between 2007 and 2015 were identified from online archives. Manuscripts blinded to journal, publication year and authorship were assessed according to 27 reporting criteria described by the PRISMA Statement and scored using a validated quality appraisal tool (AMSTAR, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Comparisons were made between studies published before (2007-2009) and after (2011-2015) its introduction. The relationship between reporting and study quality was measured using Spearman's rank test.

RESULTS

Of 281 eligible manuscripts, 80 were published before the PRISMA Statement and 201 afterwards. Most manuscripts (208) included a meta-analysis, with the remainder comprising a systematic review only. There was no meaningful change in median compliance with the PRISMA Statement (19 (i.q.r. 16-21) of 27 items before versus 19 (17-22) of 27 after introduction of PRISMA) despite achieving statistical significance (P = 0·042). Better reporting compliance was associated with higher methodological quality (r_s  = 0·70, P < 0·001).

CONCLUSION

The PRISMA Statement has had minimal impact on the reporting of surgical systematic reviews. Better compliance was associated with higher-quality methodology.

Do emergency medicine journals promote trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines? A survey of "Instructions for Authors"

Background

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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Of 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.

Discussion

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. 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.

Conclusions

Reporting 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 material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-016-0331-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Compliance of Systematic Reviews in Plastic Surgery With the PRISMA Statement

IMPORTANCE

Systematic reviews attempt to answer research questions by synthesizing the data in primary articles. They are an increasingly important tool within evidence-based medicine, guiding clinical practice, future research, and health care policy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the reporting quality of recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses in plastic surgery with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews published between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2014, in 5 major plastic surgery journals. Screening, identification, and data extraction were performed independently by 2 teams. Articles were reviewed for compliance with reporting of 27 items in the PRISMA checklist. Data analysis was conducted from January 1 to July 30, 2015.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The sum of PRISMA checklist items (1-27) per systematic review.

RESULTS

From an initial set of 163 articles, 79 met the inclusion criteria. The median PRISMA score was 16 of 27 items (59%) (range, 6%-26%; 95% CI, 14%-17%). Compliance varied between individual PRISMA items. It was poorest for items related to the use of review protocol (item 5; 4 articles [5%]) and presentation of data on the risk of bias of each study (item 19; 14 articles [18%]). Compliance was the highest for description of rationale (item 3; 78 articles [99%]), sources of funding and other support (item 27; 75 articles [95%]), and inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract (item 2; 75 articles [95%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The reporting quality of systematic reviews in plastic surgery requires improvement. Enforcement of compliance through journal submission systems, as well as improved education, awareness, and a cohesive strategy among all stakeholders, is called for.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA.

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014. Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria. Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate. We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews, and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs. We identified 682 SRs, suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade. The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China, the UK, or the US; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants. Meta-analysis was performed in 63% of SRs, mostly using standard pairwise methods. Study risk of bias/quality assessment was performed in 70% of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis (16%). Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs. Reporting quality was highly variable; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol, eligibility criteria relating to publication status, years of coverage of the search, a full Boolean search logic for at least one database, methods for data extraction, methods for study risk of bias assessment, a primary outcome, an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations, or the funding source of the SR. Cochrane SRs, which accounted for 15% of the sample, had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs. Reporting has generally improved since 2004, but remains suboptimal for many characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

An increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research.