A cross-sectional study of the endorsement proportion of reporting guidelines in 1039 Chinese medical journals

5Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Reporting quality is a critical issue in health sciences. Adopting the reporting guidelines has been approved to be an effective way of enhancing the reporting quality and transparency of clinical research. In 2012, we found that only 7 (7/1221, 0.6%) journals adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement in China. The aim of the study was to know the implementation status of CONSORT and other reporting guidelines about clinical studies in China. Methods: A cross-sectional bibliometric study was conducted. Eight medical databases were systematically searched, and 1039 medical journals published in mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan were included. The basic characteristics, including subject, language, publication place, journal-indexed databases, and journal impact factors were extracted. The endorsement of reporting guidelines was assessed by a modified 5-level evaluation tool, namely i) positive active, ii) positive weak, iii) passive moderate, iv) passive weak and v) none. Results: Among included journals, 24.1% endorsed CONSORT, and 0.8% endorsed CONSORT extensions. For STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), STARD (An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies), CARE (CAse REport guidelines), the endorsement proportion were 17.2, 16.6, 16.4, and 14.8% respectively. The endorsement proportion for SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials), TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis), AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation), and RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) were below 0.7%. Conclusions: Our results showed that the implementation of reporting guidelines was low. We suggest the following initiatives including i) enhancing the level of journal endorsement for reporting guidelines; ii) strengthening the collaboration among authors, reviewers, editors, and other stakeholders; iii) providing training courses for stakeholders; iv) establishing bases for reporting guidelines network in China; v) adopting the endorsement of reporting guidelines in the policies of the China Periodicals Association (CPA); vi) promoting Chinese medical journals into the international evaluation system and publish in English.

References Powered by Scopus

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

54033Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies

6118Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

4671Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The endorsement of general and artificial intelligence reporting guidelines in radiological journals: a meta-research study

6Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

STROBE, CONSORT, PRISMA, MOOSE, STARD, SPIRIT, and other guidelines - Overview and application

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Duan, Y., Zhao, L., Ma, Y., Luo, J., Chen, J., Miao, J., … Bian, Z. (2023). A cross-sectional study of the endorsement proportion of reporting guidelines in 1039 Chinese medical journals. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01789-1

Readers over time

‘22‘23‘24‘2502468

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

50%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

25%

Researcher 1

25%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Nursing and Health Professions 3

60%

Medicine and Dentistry 1

20%

Materials Science 1

20%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0