Requirements for trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in critical care journals: A meta-epidemiological study of journals' instructions for authors

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the policies of critical care journals with regard to guideline adoption and clinical trial registration to understand the extent to which journals use these mechanisms to improve reporting practices. Methods: The current study's sample comprised 37 critical care journals cataloged in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2015 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index critical care subcategory. A webbased data abstraction was performed to identify which journals required, recommended, or made no mention of 17 different reporting guidelines. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another's ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated by using STATA 13. Results: Of the 37 critical care journals, 15 (15/37, 40.5%) did not mention a single guideline within their instructions for authors, whereas the remaining 22 (22/37, 59.5%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research were not mentioned by any journals, whereas the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (26/37, 70.3%) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (17/37, 45.9%) were mentioned most often. Of the 37 critical care journals, 21 (21/37, 56.8%) did not mention trial or review registration, but the remaining 16 (16/37, 43.2%) mentioned at least one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by six (6/37, 16.2%) journals, whereas the WHO registry was mentioned by five (5/37, 13.5%). Sixteen (16/37, 43.2%) journals mentioned trial registration through a registry platform. Conclusion: Nearly half of the journals in our sample did not mention a reporting guideline, and only a small percentage of journals required the registration of clinical trials as a condition for publication. Implementing these two mechanisms may limit bias, and their adoption should be considered by journal editors in critical care.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)55-65
Number of pages11
JournalInternational Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Mar 2018

Fingerprint

Critical Care
Epidemiologic Studies
Guidelines
Registries
Clinical Trials
Manuscripts
Qualitative Research
Publications
Meta-Analysis

Keywords

  • Clinical trial registry
  • ClinicalTrials.gov
  • Consolidated standards of reporting trials
  • Enhancing the quality of transparency of health research network
  • International committee of medical journal editors
  • Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
  • Reporting guidelines
  • Standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies
  • Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology
  • WHO

Cite this

@article{de2e078b74ce42e282b6b19ea74fbc4f,
title = "Requirements for trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in critical care journals: A meta-epidemiological study of journals' instructions for authors",
abstract = "Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the policies of critical care journals with regard to guideline adoption and clinical trial registration to understand the extent to which journals use these mechanisms to improve reporting practices. Methods: The current study's sample comprised 37 critical care journals cataloged in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2015 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index critical care subcategory. A webbased data abstraction was performed to identify which journals required, recommended, or made no mention of 17 different reporting guidelines. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another's ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated by using STATA 13. Results: Of the 37 critical care journals, 15 (15/37, 40.5{\%}) did not mention a single guideline within their instructions for authors, whereas the remaining 22 (22/37, 59.5{\%}) mentioned one or more guidelines. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research were not mentioned by any journals, whereas the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (26/37, 70.3{\%}) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (17/37, 45.9{\%}) were mentioned most often. Of the 37 critical care journals, 21 (21/37, 56.8{\%}) did not mention trial or review registration, but the remaining 16 (16/37, 43.2{\%}) mentioned at least one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by six (6/37, 16.2{\%}) journals, whereas the WHO registry was mentioned by five (5/37, 13.5{\%}). Sixteen (16/37, 43.2{\%}) journals mentioned trial registration through a registry platform. Conclusion: Nearly half of the journals in our sample did not mention a reporting guideline, and only a small percentage of journals required the registration of clinical trials as a condition for publication. Implementing these two mechanisms may limit bias, and their adoption should be considered by journal editors in critical care.",
keywords = "Clinical trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, Consolidated standards of reporting trials, Enhancing the quality of transparency of health research network, International committee of medical journal editors, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, Reporting guidelines, Standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies, Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology, WHO",
author = "Sims, {Matthew T.} and Checketts, {Jake X.} and Cole Wayant and Matt Vassar",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/XEB.0000000000000120",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "55--65",
journal = "International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare",
issn = "1744-1595",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Requirements for trial registration and adherence to reporting guidelines in critical care journals

T2 - A meta-epidemiological study of journals' instructions for authors

AU - Sims, Matthew T.

AU - Checketts, Jake X.

AU - Wayant, Cole

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2018/3/1

Y1 - 2018/3/1

N2 - Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the policies of critical care journals with regard to guideline adoption and clinical trial registration to understand the extent to which journals use these mechanisms to improve reporting practices. Methods: The current study's sample comprised 37 critical care journals cataloged in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2015 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index critical care subcategory. A webbased data abstraction was performed to identify which journals required, recommended, or made no mention of 17 different reporting guidelines. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another's ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated by using STATA 13. Results: Of the 37 critical care journals, 15 (15/37, 40.5%) did not mention a single guideline within their instructions for authors, whereas the remaining 22 (22/37, 59.5%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research were not mentioned by any journals, whereas the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (26/37, 70.3%) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (17/37, 45.9%) were mentioned most often. Of the 37 critical care journals, 21 (21/37, 56.8%) did not mention trial or review registration, but the remaining 16 (16/37, 43.2%) mentioned at least one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by six (6/37, 16.2%) journals, whereas the WHO registry was mentioned by five (5/37, 13.5%). Sixteen (16/37, 43.2%) journals mentioned trial registration through a registry platform. Conclusion: Nearly half of the journals in our sample did not mention a reporting guideline, and only a small percentage of journals required the registration of clinical trials as a condition for publication. Implementing these two mechanisms may limit bias, and their adoption should be considered by journal editors in critical care.

AB - Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the policies of critical care journals with regard to guideline adoption and clinical trial registration to understand the extent to which journals use these mechanisms to improve reporting practices. Methods: The current study's sample comprised 37 critical care journals cataloged in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2015 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index critical care subcategory. A webbased data abstraction was performed to identify which journals required, recommended, or made no mention of 17 different reporting guidelines. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another's ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated by using STATA 13. Results: Of the 37 critical care journals, 15 (15/37, 40.5%) did not mention a single guideline within their instructions for authors, whereas the remaining 22 (22/37, 59.5%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research were not mentioned by any journals, whereas the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (26/37, 70.3%) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (17/37, 45.9%) were mentioned most often. Of the 37 critical care journals, 21 (21/37, 56.8%) did not mention trial or review registration, but the remaining 16 (16/37, 43.2%) mentioned at least one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by six (6/37, 16.2%) journals, whereas the WHO registry was mentioned by five (5/37, 13.5%). Sixteen (16/37, 43.2%) journals mentioned trial registration through a registry platform. Conclusion: Nearly half of the journals in our sample did not mention a reporting guideline, and only a small percentage of journals required the registration of clinical trials as a condition for publication. Implementing these two mechanisms may limit bias, and their adoption should be considered by journal editors in critical care.

KW - Clinical trial registry

KW - ClinicalTrials.gov

KW - Consolidated standards of reporting trials

KW - Enhancing the quality of transparency of health research network

KW - International committee of medical journal editors

KW - Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses

KW - Reporting guidelines

KW - Standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies

KW - Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology

KW - WHO

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044288431&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000120

DO - 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000120

M3 - Article

C2 - 28863029

AN - SCOPUS:85044288431

VL - 16

SP - 55

EP - 65

JO - International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare

JF - International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare

SN - 1744-1595

IS - 1

ER -