The Use of Reporting Guidelines in Rheumatology: A Cross-Sectional Study of Over 850 Manuscripts Published in 5 Major Rheumatology Journals

Aldo Barajas‐Ochoa · Antonio Cisneros-Barrios · Manuel Ramirez-Trejo · César Ramos-Remus

5 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of Rheumatology

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

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether 16 of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network-related reporting guidelines were used in rheumatology publications. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of research articles published in 5 high-performance rheumatology-focused journals in 2019. All articles were (1) manually reviewed to assess whether the use of a reporting guideline could be advisable, and (2) searched for the names and acronyms (eg, CONSORT [Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials], STROBE [Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology]) of 16 reporting guidelines. To calculate the "advisable use rate," the number of articles for which a guideline was used was divided by the number of articles for which the guideline was advised. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: We reviewed 895 manuscripts across the 5 journals. The use of a guideline was deemed advisable for 693 (77%) articles. Reporting guidelines were used in 50 articles, representing 5.6% of total articles and 7.2% (95% CI 5-9) of articles for which guidelines were advised. The advisable use rate boundaries within which a guideline was applied by the journals were 0.03 to 0.10 for any guideline, 0 to 0.26 for CONSORT, 0.01 to 0.07 for STROBE, 0 to 0.8 for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), and 0 to 0.14 for Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). No identifiable trends in the variables studied were observed across the 5 journals. CONCLUSION: The limited use of reporting guidelines appears counterintuitive, considering that guidelines are promoted by journals and are intended to help authors report relevant information. Whether this finding is attributable to issues with the diffusion, awareness, acceptance, or perceived usefulness of the guidelines remains to be clarified.

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 — 5 citations exist upstream.

References

2012Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane reviewa 2021A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review 2011Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study 2012Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis 2007A Critical Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomized, Controlled Trials in the Urology Literature 2019Quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in emergency medicine based on the PRISMA statement 2015Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials in Otorhinolaryngologic Literature – Adherence to the CONSORT Statement 2017Trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in cardiovascular journals

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.