Adherence to reporting guidelines across clinical neurology journals: A preliminary study

Abstract

Background: High quality research is depended upon by clinicians for daily practice and advancement of medicine. Reporting guidelines (RG) and clinical trial registration help ensure that studies are performed in a transparent and unbiased manner. For example, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) is a RG for randomized control trials (RCTs) which has led to improved data reporting and increased usability by clinicians. Additionally, when authors submit a protocol to a public registry prior to commencement of their study, this increases transparency and is shown to reduce bias that may arise during the production of the study. Therefore, applying the use of RGs and clinical trial registration is indicated in all fields of medicine. However, the extent by which journals enforce these methods in the field of clinical Neurology is unknown. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to examine the proportion of journals that require or recommend adherence to RGs for their study designs in the field of clinical Neurology.

Methods: We conducted a Systematic Review evaluating the top 100 journals in clinical Neurology according to the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. In a masked, duplicate fashion, data were obtained from each journal’s “instructions to authors” webpage regarding mention of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and requirement/recommendation of popular RGs as outlined by the EQUATOR Network. Statements regarding clinical trial registration were analyzed in a similar fashion. To mitigate the risk of bias, the editorial team of each journal was contacted to confirm the article types that are accepted.

Results: Of the top 100 journals, 51/100 (51%) referenced the EQUATOR Network. The most referenced RG was CONSORT, with 42/100 (42%) journals recommending adherence and 22/100 (22%) requiring adherence. QUORUM was referenced in 2/100 (2.0%) journals, the least referenced RG in our study sample. Regarding Clinical Trial Registration, 12/100 (12%) journals recommended registration, while 53/100 (53%) required it.

Conclusion: There are inconsistencies in the adoption of reporting guideline requirements/recommendations and clinical trial registration policies across the top clinical neurology journals. Therefore, we recommend that journal editors better enforce policies regarding these tools to improve the quality of research published.