Family medicine journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration: a cross-sectional analysis.

Abstract

Background: Family medicine, vital for patient care but underfunded, prompts an evaluation of how family medicine journals endorse, require, and advocate for reporting guidelines (RGs), clinical trial, and systematic review registration.

Aim: Assess endorsement and requirement of RGs, and the stance on clinical trial and systematic review registration in family medicine journals, impacting research quality and transparency.

Design & setting: A cross-sectional analysis of 43 "Family Practice" journals, identified through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore. Editors-in-Chief were contacted to confirm article types. Data extracted from "instructions to authors" pages focused on RG recommendations, requirements, and trial registration.

Method: To ensure confidentiality and prevent bias, authors independently extracted data on RG utilisation, adherence, and clinical trial registration provide a overview of research standards.

Results: Of 43 journals, the most recommended guidelines were CONSORT (69%), PRISMA (58%), and STROBE (60%). The most required were PRISMA (16%) and CONSORT (11%). Clinical trial registration was recommended or required by 67% of journals. Additionally, 40 out of the 43 (93%) journals cited at least one reporting guideline in their instructions to authors.

Conclusion: Family medicine journals exhibit varied endorsement and requirement patterns for RGs and clinical trial registration. While guidelines like CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE are acknowledged, caution is needed in presuming a direct link to enhanced research quality. A nuanced approach, promoting diverse reporting guidelines and rigorous study registration, is essential for elevating transparency and advancing research standards in family medicine.