Do Journals Publishing in the Field of Urology Endorse Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of Author Instructions

Frank Kunath · Henrik R. Grobe · Gerta Rücker · Dirk Gerhard Engehausen · Gerd Antes · Bernd Wullich +1 more

36 citations0/0 files storedUrologia Internationalis

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Writing and Publishing Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Reporting guidelines aim to ensure adequate and complete reporting of clinical studies and are an indispensable tool to translate scientific results into clinical practice. The extent to which reporting guidelines are incorporated into the author instructions of journals publishing in the field of urology remained unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the author instructions of uro-nephrological journals indexed in 'Journal Citation Reports 2009'. Two authors independently assessed the author guidelines. We evaluated additional information including whether a journal was published by or in association with a medical association. Discrepancies were resolved by re-checking the respective author instructions and by discussion with a third author. RESULTS: The recommendations of the International Committee of Journal Editors were endorsed by 32 journals (58.2%) but were mentioned in 12 (37.5%) only to give general advice about manuscript preparation. Fourteen journals (25.5%) mentioned at least one reporting guideline, with CONSORT the most frequently cited. Journals with high impact factors were more likely to endorse CONSORT (p < 0.009). Other reporting guidelines were mentioned by <6% of the journals. CONCLUSION: All key stakeholders involved in the publication process should more frequently promote the awareness and use of reporting guidelines.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 36 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2007Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2000Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting 2007The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies 2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2007Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration 2003Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative

Cited by

2012Evaluating the impact and use of Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomised Designs (TREND) reporting guidelines 2013How Psychiatry Journals Support the Unbiased Translation of Clinical Research. A Cross-Sectional Study of Editorial Policies 2014Impact of the Transparent Reporting of Evaluations With Nonrandomized Designs Reporting Guideline: Ten Years On

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.