Bratten Chance, Khan Hassan, King Diana, Muhammad Rohaan, Hemmerich Christian, Smith Caleb A, Nees Danya, Hughes Griffin, Vassar Matt
Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 Aug;184:111835. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111835. Epub 2025 May 19.
Clinicians rely on evidence-based research for clinical practice to ensure safe, efficacious patient care. Reporting guidelines (RGs) and clinical trial registration improve the quality of this research by increasing transparency and reducing the risk of biases. The extent to which endocrinology journals adopt the use of these tools is unclear. Therefore, the primary outcome of this study is to assess the recommendation and requirement of RGs, and the secondary outcome is to assess clinical trial registration in the top endocrinology journals.
The top 100 journals in the "Endocrinology, Obesity, and Metabolism" subcategory were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. The "instructions to authors" of each journal were analyzed for statements regarding select RGs outlined by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Network, as well as clinical trial registration. Statements were recorded as "Not Mentioned," "Recommended," "Does Not Require," or "Required." To prevent unfair assessment, each journal was contacted to confirm the article types that are accepted.
Of 100 journals examined, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials was the most commonly mentioned guideline, with 46 journals recommending adherence and 36 journals requiring adherence. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was recommended by 61 journals and required by 19 journals. Finally, 77 journals required clinical trial registration.
Our study reveals a lack of consistent endorsement of RGs in top endocrinology journals. This may undermine transparency and introduce bias. The main limitation of this study is the narrow scope of the study leading to a low generalizability. We suggest that journal editors in this field enforce validated RGs more strictly to improve the quality of published research.
临床医生依靠循证研究进行临床实践，以确保为患者提供安全、有效的护理。报告指南（RGs）和临床试验注册通过提高透明度和降低偏倚风险来提升这项研究的质量。内分泌学期刊采用这些工具的程度尚不清楚。因此，本研究的主要结果是评估报告指南的推荐和要求，次要结果是评估顶级内分泌学期刊中的临床试验注册情况。
使用2021年Scopus CiteScore工具确定“内分泌学、肥胖与代谢”子类别中的前100种期刊。分析每种期刊的“作者须知”中有关健康研究网络提高质量和透明度网络概述的选定报告指南以及临床试验注册的声明。声明记录为“未提及”“推荐”“不要求”或“要求”。为防止不公平评估，联系了每种期刊以确认其接受的文章类型。
在审查的100种期刊中，《报告试验的统一标准》是最常被提及的指南，46种期刊推荐遵守，36种期刊要求遵守。61种期刊推荐并19种期刊要求使用《系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目》。最后，77种期刊要求进行临床试验注册。
我们的研究表明顶级内分泌学期刊对报告指南缺乏一致认可。这可能会损害透明度并引入偏倚。本研究的主要局限性在于研究范围狭窄，导致普遍性较低。我们建议该领域的期刊编辑更严格地执行经过验证的报告指南，以提高发表研究的质量。
