Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan 5;4(1):17-21.
doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2014.12.003. eCollection 2015 Mar.

Do surgery journals insist on reporting by CONSORT and PRISMA? A follow-up survey of 'instructions to authors'

Tanya A Smith  1 , Priyantha Kulatilake  1 , Lucy J Brown  2 , James Wigley  3 , Waseem Hameed  4 , Saran Shantikumar  5
Affiliations

Do surgery journals insist on reporting by CONSORT and PRISMA? A follow-up survey of 'instructions to authors'

Tanya A Smith et al. Ann Med Surg (Lond). .

Abstract

Aims: Guidance has been published on how best to report randomised controlled trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials - CONSORT) and systematic reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis - PRISMA). In 2011, we reported a low rate of enforcement by surgery journals for submitted manuscripts to conform to these guidelines. The aim of this follow-up study is to establish whether there has been any improvement.

Methods: We studied the 134 surgery journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report. The 'Instructions to Authors' were scrutinised for inclusion of the following guidance: CONSORT, PRISMA, clinical trial registration and systematic review registration.

Results: Compared to 2011, there has been an improvement in the endorsement of reporting guidance in journals' 'Instructions to Authors' in 2014, as follows: trial registration (42% vs 33%), CONSORT (42% vs 30%) and PRISMA (19% vs 10%, all p < 0.001). As in 2011, journals with a higher impact were more likely to adopt trial registration (p < 0.001), CONSORT (p < 0.001) and PRISMA (p = 0.002). Journals with editorial offices in the UK were more likely to endorse guidance compared to those outside the UK (p < 0.05). Only one journal mentioned registration for systematic reviews.

Conclusions: Surgery journals are presently more likely to require submitted manuscripts to follow published reporting guidance compared to three years ago. However, overall concordance rates are still low, and an improvement is required to help enhance the quality of reporting - and ultimately the conduct - of randomised control trials and systematic reviews in surgery.

Keywords: Clinical trials; Conflict of interests; Editorial policies; Guidelines; Journalism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
List of journals included in the study.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Percentage levels of endorsement of each guideline, given that the guideline has been mentioned in the instructions to authors. The labels above each bar indicate the absolute numbers. Systematic review registration has not been included, as only one journal mentioned this, and it was only recommended in this case.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. De Angelis C., Drazen J.M., Frizelle F.A., Haug C., Hoey J., Horton R. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(6):477–478. - PubMed
    1. Schulz K.F., Altman D.G., Moher D., the CONSOR Group CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340 c332. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Begg C., Cho M., Eastwood S., Horton R., Moher D., Olkin I. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1996;276(8):637–639. - PubMed
    1. Plint A.C., Moher D., Morrison A., Schulz K., Altman D.G., Hill C. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006;185(5):263–267. - PubMed
    1. Moher D., Cook D.J., Eastwood S., Olkin I., Rennie D., Stroup D.F. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1896–1900. - PubMed