PurposeReporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.Materials and methodsEight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).ResultsAmong the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.ConclusionWe conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

BackgroundProspective study protocols and registrations can play a significant role in reducing incomplete or selective reporting of primary biomedical research, because they are pre-specified blueprints which are available for the evaluation of, and comparison with, full reports. However, inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports have been frequently documented. In this systematic review, which forms part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical, we aimed to survey the existing evidence of inconsistencies between protocols or registrations (i.e., what was planned to be done and/or what was actually done) and full reports (i.e., what was reported in the literature); this was based on findings from systematic reviews and surveys in the literature.MethodsElectronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched to identify eligible surveys and systematic reviews. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency (expressed as a percentage, with higher percentages indicating greater inconsistency) between protocols or registration and full reports. We summarized the findings from the included systematic reviews and surveys qualitatively.ResultsThere were 37 studies (33 surveys and 4 systematic reviews) included in our analyses. Most studies (n = 36) compared protocols or registrations with full reports in clinical trials, while a single survey focused on primary studies of clinical trials and observational research. High inconsistency levels were found in outcome reporting (ranging from 14% to 100%), subgroup reporting (from 12% to 100%), statistical analyses (from 9% to 47%), and other measure comparisons. Some factors, such as outcomes with significant results, sponsorship, type of outcome and disease speciality were reported to be significantly related to inconsistent reporting.ConclusionsWe found that inconsistent reporting between protocols or registrations and full reports of primary biomedical research is frequent, prevalent and suboptimal. We also identified methodological issues such as the need for consensus on measuring inconsistency across sources for trial reports, and more studies evaluating transparency and reproducibility in reporting all aspects of study design and analysis. A joint effort involving authors, journals, sponsors, regulators and research ethics committees is required to solve this problem.

BackgroundEvidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively.ResultsSeventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies.ConclusionsThis scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community.