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

Wayant, Cole; Smith, Clement A.; Sims, Matt; Vassar, Matt

doi:10.1111/jth.13637

Cited by 18 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings, which highlight the suboptimal compliance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines, are in line with what has been previously demonstrated in other clinical areas of research. [17][18][19][20] These investigations have reported a compliance rate of as low as 50% with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines among systematic reviews and metaanalyses, a finding that is consistent with our results despite the high-impact nature of our selected journals. We also observed that only a minority of the included metaanalyses reported the GRADE assessment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Methodological Rigor and Temporal Trends of Cardiovascular Medicine Meta‐Analyses in Highest‐Impact Journals

Mahtta

Altibi²,

Gad

et al. 2021

JAHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Well‐conducted meta‐analyses are considered to be at the top of the evidence‐based hierarchy pyramid, with an expansion of these publications within the cardiovascular research arena. There are limited data evaluating the trends and quality of such publications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the methodological rigor and temporal trends of cardiovascular medicine‐related meta‐analyses published in the highest impact journals. Methods and Results Using the Medline database, we retrieved cardiovascular medicine‐related systematic reviews and meta‐analyses published in The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, The British Medical Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Circulation, European Heart Journal, and Journal of American College of Cardiology between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018. Among 6406 original investigations published during the study period, meta‐analyses represented 422 (6.6%) articles, with an annual decline in the proportion of published meta‐analyses (8.7% in 2012 versus 4.6% in 2018, P trend =0.002). A substantial number of studies failed to incorporate elements of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses or Meta‐Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines (51.9%) and only a minority of studies (10.4%) were registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). Fewer manuscripts failed to incorporate the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses or Meta‐Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology elements over time (60.2% in 2012 versus 40.0% in 2018, P trend <0.001) whereas the number of meta‐analyses registered at PROSPERO has increased (2.4% in 2013 versus 17.5% in 2018, P trend <0.001). Conclusions The proportion of cardiovascular medicine‐related meta‐analyses published in the highest impact journals has declined over time. Although there is an increasing trend in compliance with quality‐based guidelines, the overall compliance remains low.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Methodological Rigor and Temporal Trends of Cardiovascular Medicine Meta‐Analyses in Highest‐Impact Journals

Mahtta

Altibi²,

Gad

et al. 2021

JAHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many journals across various medical subspecialties require adherence to reporting guidelines, but universal adoption has not yet been achieved. 7,[11][12][13][14][15] The literature suggests that if journals universally adopted reporting guidelines, the quality, transparency, and reproducibility of the published literature would strengthen. 8,[16][17][18][19][20] However, many addiction journals do not currently suggest or require reporting guidelines for submission.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Cooper

Gray

Barcenas

et al. 2020

Journal of Osteopathic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The evolution of journal endorsement of reporting guidelines and study registration in the last decade is depicted in figure 2 15–24. Our results showed that the journals we considered were more likely to endorse the CONSORT statement, the most commonly endorsed standard, and other reporting guidelines than journals in prior evaluations and covering other fields.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Endorsement of reporting guidelines and study registration by endocrine and internal medicine journals: meta-epidemiological study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo improve the trustworthiness of evidence, studies should be prospectively registered and research reports should adhere to existing standards. We aimed to systematically assess the degree to which endocrinology and internal medicine journals endorse study registration and reporting standards for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews (SRs) and observational studies (ObS). Additionally, we evaluated characteristics that predict endorsement of reporting or registration mechanism by these journals.DesignMeta-epidemiological study.SettingJournals included in the ‘Endocrinology and Metabolism’ and ‘General and Internal Medicine’ 2017 Journal Citation Reports.ParticipantsJournals with an impact factor of ≥1.0, focused on clinical medicine, and those who publish RCTs, SRs and ObS were included.Primary outcomesRequirement of adherence to reporting guideline and study registration as determined from the journals’ author instructions.ResultsOf the 170 (82 endocrinology and 88 internal medicine) eligible journals, endorsing of reporting standards was the highest for RCTs, with 35 (43%) of endocrine journals and 55 (63%) of internal medicine journals followed by SRs, with 21 (26%) and 48 (55%), respectively, and lastly, by ObS with 41 (50%) of endocrine journals and 21 (24%) of internal medicine journals. In 78 (46%) journals RCTs were required to be registered and published in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Only 11 (6%) journals required registration of SRs. Internal medicine journals were more likely to endorse reporting guidelines than endocrine journals except for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. No other journal characteristic proved to be an independent predictor of reporting standard endorsement for RCTs besides trial registration.ConclusionOur results highlight that study registration requirement and reporting guideline endorsement are suboptimal in internal medicine and endocrine journals. This malpractice may be further enhanced since endorsement does not imply enforcement, impairing the practice of evidence-based medicine.

show abstract

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

Cited by 18 publications

References 26 publications

Methodological Rigor and Temporal Trends of Cardiovascular Medicine Meta‐Analyses in Highest‐Impact Journals

Methodological Rigor and Temporal Trends of Cardiovascular Medicine Meta‐Analyses in Highest‐Impact Journals

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

Endorsement of reporting guidelines and study registration by endocrine and internal medicine journals: meta-epidemiological study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About