A cross-sectional study of the endorsement proportion of reporting guidelines in 1039 Chinese medical journals

Duan, Yuting; Zhao, Lingyun; Ma, Yanfang; Luo, Jingyuan; Chen, Juexuan; Miao, Jiangxia; Zhang, Xuan; Moher, David; Bian, Zhaoxiang

doi:10.1186/s12874-022-01789-1

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The CONSORT statement was one of the most early developed reporting guidelines for randomized clinical trials, followed by a brunches of reporting guidelines published covering main study types. In accordance to the previous studies, the CONSORT statement has been most commonly endorsed by journals in varying specialties [ 6 – 19 ]. The methodology of randomized clinical trials was less difference among journals from different specialties, and the CONSORT statement met the requirements for most of the journals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…The endorsement of fifteen general reporting guidelines [ 45 – 59 ] and ten reporting guidelines for AI applications in medical imaging [ 60 – 69 ] was rated using a 5-level tool [ 19 ]. The 15 general reporting guidelines were selected since they are considered as the most frequently used for main study types, and are highlighted on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network website [ 70 ]: (1) CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for randomized trials [ 45 ], (2) STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) for observational studies [ 46 ], (3) PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) for systematic reviews [ 47 ], (4) SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) for study protocols [ 48 ], (5) PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) for study protocols [ 49 ], (6) STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) for diagnostic/prognostic studies [ 50 ], (7) TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) for diagnostic/prognostic studies [ 51 ], (8) CARE (CAse REport guidelines) for case report [ 52 ], (9) AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation) for clinical practice guidelines [ 53 ], (10) RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) for clinical practice guidelines [ 54 ], (11) SRQR (Standards for Reporting of Qualitative Research) for qualitative research [ 55 ], (12) COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) for qualitative research [ 56 ], (13) ARRIVE (Animal Research Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) for animal pre-clinical studies [ 57 ], (14) SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) for quality improvement studies [ 58 ], and (15) CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) for economic evaluations [ 59 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The modified 5-level tool rated the endorsement into: (1) “active strong”: journal requires completed checklist and/or flow diagram with article submission; (2) “active weak”: journal encourages to flow a specific guideline; (3) “passive moderate”: journal only requires the abstract to follow a specific guideline; (4) “passive weak”: journal encourages to prepare manuscripts according to EQUATOR Network website [ 70 ] or the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors document [ 71 ]; and (5) “none”: journal does not mention any reporting guideline [ 19 ]. The assessment on journal’s endorsement of reporting guidelines were based on their documents on submission (instructions for authors, submission guideline, editorial policies, etc.).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reporting guidelines are developed to serve as useful tools to enhance the quality and transparency of clinical research [ 2 , 3 ], while it is still a long-standing and widespread issue that the reporting quality is suboptimal [ 4 , 5 ]. It is no wonder that a series of studies have repeatedly stressed the unsatisfied endorsement of reporting guideline in clinical journals [ 6 – 19 ], since the journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines may raise the stakeholders’ awareness of them and is related to the completeness of reporting in medical journals [ 20 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study

Zhong,

Xing,

et al. 2023

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Complete reporting is essential for clinical research. However, the endorsement of reporting guidelines in radiological journals is still unclear. Further, as a field extensively utilizing artificial intelligence (AI), the adoption of both general and AI reporting guidelines would be necessary for enhancing quality and transparency of radiological research. This study aims to investigate the endorsement of general reporting guidelines and those for AI applications in medical imaging in radiological journals, and explore associated journal characteristic variables. Methods This meta-research study screened journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging category, Science Citation Index Expanded of the 2022 Journal Citation Reports, and excluded journals not publishing original research, in non-English languages, and instructions for authors unavailable. The endorsement of fifteen general reporting guidelines and ten AI reporting guidelines was rated using a five-level tool: “active strong”, “active weak”, “passive moderate”, “passive weak”, and “none”. The association between endorsement and journal characteristic variables was evaluated by logistic regression analysis. Results We included 117 journals. The top-five endorsed reporting guidelines were CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, 58.1%, 68/117), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 54.7%, 64/117), STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, 51.3%, 60/117), STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy, 50.4%, 59/117), and ARRIVE (Animal Research Reporting of In Vivo Experiments, 35.9%, 42/117). The most implemented AI reporting guideline was CLAIM (Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging, 1.7%, 2/117), while other nine AI reporting guidelines were not mentioned. The Journal Impact Factor quartile and publisher were associated with endorsement of reporting guidelines in radiological journals. Conclusions The general reporting guideline endorsement was suboptimal in radiological journals. The implementation of reporting guidelines for AI applications in medical imaging was extremely low. Their adoption should be strengthened to facilitate quality and transparency of radiological study reporting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study

Zhong,

Xing,

et al. 2023

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In describing how journals support specific guidelines, there is no agreement on distinctions between terms such as "adoption" and "endorsement" of reporting guidelines. Some studies have used the terms interchangeably [36][37][38][39][40]. Stevens et al [23, p 3 of 29] provide distinctions between the related terms endorsement, adherence and implementation:…”

Section: Reporting Guideline Characteristics and Endorsementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers

Wang,

Wolfram,

Gilbert

2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biomedical research reporting guidelines provide a framework by which journal editors and the researchers who conduct studies can ensure that the reported research is both complete and transparent. With more than 16 different guidelines for the 11 major study types of medical and health research, authors need to be familiar with journal reporting standards. To assess the current endorsements of reporting guidelines for biomedical and health research, this study examined the instructions for authors (IFAs) of 559 biomedical journals by 11 prominent publishers that publish original research or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Data from the above original sources were cleaned and restructured, and analyzed in a database and text miner. Each journal’s instructions or information for authors were examined to code if any of five prominent reporting guidelines were mentioned and what form the guideline adherence demonstration took. Seventeen journals published the reporting guidelines. Four of the five reporting guidelines listed journals as endorsers. For journals with open peer review reports, a sample of journals and peer reviews was analyzed for mention of adherence to reporting guidelines. The endorsement of research guidelines by publishers and their associated journals is inconsistent for some publishers, with only a small number of journals endorsing relevant guidelines. Based on the analysis of open peer reviews, there is evidence that some reviewers check the adherence to the endorsed reporting guidelines. Currently, there is no universal endorsement of reporting guidelines by publishers nor ways of demonstrating adherence to guidelines. Journals may not directly inform authors of their guideline endorsements, making it more difficult for authors to adhere to endorsed guidelines. Suggestions derived from the findings are provided for authors, journals, and reporting guidelines to ensure increased adequate use of endorsed reporting guidelines.

show abstract

The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study

Zhong,

Xing,

et al. 2024

Insights Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate whether and how the radiological journals present their policies on the use of large language models (LLMs), and identify the journal characteristic variables that are associated with the presence. Methods In this meta-research study, we screened Journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging Category, 2022 Journal Citation Reports, excluding journals in non-English languages and relevant documents unavailable. We assessed their LLM use policies: (1) whether the policy is present; (2) whether the policy for the authors, the reviewers, and the editors is present; and (3) whether the policy asks the author to report the usage of LLMs, the name of LLMs, the section that used LLMs, the role of LLMs, the verification of LLMs, and the potential influence of LLMs. The association between the presence of policies and journal characteristic variables was evaluated. Results The LLM use policies were presented in 43.9% (83/189) of journals, and those for the authors, the reviewers, and the editor were presented in 43.4% (82/189), 29.6% (56/189) and 25.9% (49/189) of journals, respectively. Many journals mentioned the aspects of the usage (43.4%, 82/189), the name (34.9%, 66/189), the verification (33.3%, 63/189), and the role (31.7%, 60/189) of LLMs, while the potential influence of LLMs (4.2%, 8/189), and the section that used LLMs (1.6%, 3/189) were seldomly touched. The publisher is related to the presence of LLM use policies (p < 0.001). Conclusion The presence of LLM use policies is suboptimal in radiological journals. A reporting guideline is encouraged to facilitate reporting quality and transparency. Critical relevance statement It may facilitate the quality and transparency of the use of LLMs in scientific writing if a shared complete reporting guideline is developed by stakeholders and then endorsed by journals. Key Points The policies on LLM use in radiological journals are unexplored. Some of the radiological journals presented policies on LLM use. A shared complete reporting guideline for LLM use is desired. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

A cross-sectional study of the endorsement proportion of reporting guidelines in 1039 Chinese medical journals

Cited by 4 publications

References 35 publications

The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study

The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study

Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers

The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About