Endorsement of reporting guidelines and trial registration remains inconsistent across top endocrinology journals

Background and Objectives: Clinicians rely on evidence-based research for clinical practice to ensure safe, efficacious patient care. Reporting guidelines (RGs) and clinical trial registration improve the quality of this research by increasing transparency and reducing the risk of biases. The extent to which endocrinology journals adopt the use of these tools is unclear. Therefore, the primary outcome of this study is to assess the recommendation and requirement of RGs, and the secondary outcome is to assess clinical trial registration in the top endocrinology journals. Methods: The top 100 journals in the “Endocrinology, Obesity, and Metabolism” subcategory were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. The “instructions to authors” of each journal were analyzed for statements regarding select RGs outlined by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Network, as well as clinical trial registration. Statements were recorded as “Not Mentioned,” “Recommended,” “Does Not Require,” or “Required.” To prevent unfair assessment, each journal was contacted to confirm the article types that are accepted. Results: Of 100 journals examined, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials was the most commonly mentioned guideline, with 46 journals recommending adherence and 36 journals requiring adherence. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was recommended by 61 journals and required by 19 journals. Finally, 77 journals required clinical trial registration. Conclusion: Our study reveals a lack of consistent endorsement of RGs in top endocrinology journals. This may undermine transparency and introduce bias. The main limitation of this study is the narrow scope of the study leading to a low generalizability. We suggest that journal editors in this field enforce validated RGs more strictly to improve the quality of published research.