Do Journals Publishing in the Field of Urology Endorse Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of Author InstructionsKunath F.a, e · Grobe H.R.a, b · Rücker G.c · Engehausen D.e · Antes G.a · Wullich B.e · Meerpohl J.J.a, d
aGerman Cochrane Centre, Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, bDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, cInstitute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, and dPediatric Hematology and Oncology, Center for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg/Br., and eDepartment of Urology, University Clinic Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Introduction: Reporting guidelines aim to ensure adequate and complete reporting of clinical studies and are an indispensable tool to translate scientific results into clinical practice. The extent to which reporting guidelines are incorporated into the author instructions of journals publishing in the field of urology remained unclear. Materials and Methods: We assessed the author instructions of uro-nephrological journals indexed in ‘Journal Citation Reports 2009’. Two authors independently assessed the author guidelines. We evaluated additional information including whether a journal was published by or in association with a medical association. Discrepancies were resolved by re-checking the respective author instructions and by discussion with a third author. Results: The recommendations of the International Committee of Journal Editors were endorsed by 32 journals (58.2%) but were mentioned in 12 (37.5%) only to give general advice about manuscript preparation. Fourteen journals (25.5%) mentioned at least one reporting guideline, with CONSORT the most frequently cited. Journals with high impact factors were more likely to endorse CONSORT (p < 0.009). Other reporting guidelines were mentioned by <6% of the journals. Conclusion: All key stakeholders involved in the publication process should more frequently promote the awareness and use of reporting guidelines.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
- Antes G: The new consort statement. BMJ 2010;340:c1432.
- Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD: Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development. 10. Integrating values and consumer involvement. Health Res Policy Syst 2006;4:22.
- Oxman AD: Checklists for review articles. BMJ 1994;309:648–651.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. www.icmje.org (accessed 06.01.2011).
- Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, Gaboury I: Does the consort checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006;185:263–267.
- Smidt N, Rutjes AW, van der Windt DA, Ostelo RW, Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bouter LM, de Vet HC: The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the stard statement: has it improved? Neurology 2006;67:792–797.
- Simera I, Altman DG: Writing a research article that is ‘fit for purpose’: EQUATOR network and reporting guidelines. Evid Based Med 2009;14:132–134.
- Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L: Use of the consort statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001;285:1992–1995.
- Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG: Consort 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c869.
- Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC: Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003;326:41–44.
- von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP: The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:573–577.
- Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP, et al: Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the strobe statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e22.
- Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N: Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the TREND statement. Am J Public Health 2004;94:361–366.
- Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB: Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000;283:2008–2012.
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.
- Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, Ogrinc G, Mooney S: Publication guidelines for improvement studies in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:670–676.
- Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J: Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19:349–357.
- Altman DG, Simera I, Hoey J, Moher D, Schulz K: Equator: Reporting guidelines for health research. Lancet 2008;371:1149–1150.
- Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG: A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest 2010; 40:35–53.
ISI Web of Knowledge: Journal Citation Reports. New York, Thomson Reuters, 2011.
- Mrkobrada M, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Haynes RB, Iansavichus AV, Rehman F, Garg AX: Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3:1102–1114.
- Tseng TY, Breau RH, Fesperman SF, Vieweg J, Dahm P: Evaluating the evidence: the methodological and reporting quality of comparative observational studies of surgical interventions in urological publications. BJU Int 2009;103:1026–1031.
- Welk B, Afshar K, MacNeily AE: Randomized controlled trials in pediatric urology: room for improvement. J Urol 2006;176:306–309; discussion 309–310.
- Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, Quan H, Guyatt GH: The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) checklist. Control Clin Trials 2002;23:380–388.
- Scales CD Jr, Norris RD, Keitz SA, Peterson BL, Preminger GM, Vieweg J, Dahm P: A critical assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in the urology literature. J Urol 2007;177:1090–1094; discussion 1094–1095.
- Meerpohl JJ, Wolff RF, Niemeyer CM, Antes G, von Elm E: Editorial policies of pediatric journals: survey of instructions for authors. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010;164:268–272.
- Hopewell S, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF: Endorsement of the consort statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal ‘instructions to authors’. Trials 2008;9:20.
Demicheli V, Di Pietrantoni C: Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2: MR000003.
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.