Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration across urological medical journals: a cross-sectional study.

IF 2.3 3区 生物学 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PeerJ Pub Date : 2024-12-10 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.7717/peerj.18619
Alex Hagood, Joseph Case, Trevor Magee, Caleb Smith, Danya Nees, Griffin Hughes, Matt Vassar
{"title":"Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration across urological medical journals: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Alex Hagood, Joseph Case, Trevor Magee, Caleb Smith, Danya Nees, Griffin Hughes, Matt Vassar","doi":"10.7717/peerj.18619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Over the years, funding for urologic diseases has witnessed a steady rise, reaching $587 million in 2020 from $541 million in 2018. In parallel, there has been a notable increase in the total number of urology journals from 2011 to 2018. This surge in research funding and journal publications calls for urologists to effectively navigate through a vast body of evidence to make the best evidence-based clinical decisions. Our primary objective was to assess the \"instructions for authors\" of these journals to determine the extent of endorsement of reporting guidelines for common study designs in medical research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Top urology journals were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore and confirmed <i>via</i> Google Scholar Metrics h5-index. In a masked, duplicate manner, two investigators retrieved data from the \"instructions for authors\" webpages of the included journals. For each journal investigated in our study, the following data were extracted: journal title, 5-year impact factor, email responses of journal editors, mention of the EQUATOR Network in the \"instructions for authors,\" mention of the ICMJE in the \"instruction for authors,\" geographical region of publication and statements about clinical trial registration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 92 urology journals examined, only one-third (32/92) mentioned the EQUATOR network in their \"instructions for authors.\" A total of 17 journals (17/92, 18.5%) did not mention a single reporting guideline. The most endorsed guideline was CONSORT at 67.4% (62/92). Clinical trial registration was not mentioned by 28 (30%), recommended by 27 (29%), and required by 37 journals (40%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings indicate that urology journals inconsistently endorse reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Based on these results, we propose that urology journals adopt a standardized approach, incorporating explicit requirements for reporting guidelines such as those listed on the EQUATOR Network and clinical trial registration for all relevant study designs. Specifically, journals should consider clearly stating mandatory or recommended guidelines for clinical trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews, among others. Future efforts should focus on evaluating the implementation of these policies and identifying barriers that hinder their adoption.</p>","PeriodicalId":19799,"journal":{"name":"PeerJ","volume":"12 ","pages":"e18619"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11639865/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PeerJ","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.18619","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Over the years, funding for urologic diseases has witnessed a steady rise, reaching $587 million in 2020 from $541 million in 2018. In parallel, there has been a notable increase in the total number of urology journals from 2011 to 2018. This surge in research funding and journal publications calls for urologists to effectively navigate through a vast body of evidence to make the best evidence-based clinical decisions. Our primary objective was to assess the "instructions for authors" of these journals to determine the extent of endorsement of reporting guidelines for common study designs in medical research.

Methods: Top urology journals were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore and confirmed via Google Scholar Metrics h5-index. In a masked, duplicate manner, two investigators retrieved data from the "instructions for authors" webpages of the included journals. For each journal investigated in our study, the following data were extracted: journal title, 5-year impact factor, email responses of journal editors, mention of the EQUATOR Network in the "instructions for authors," mention of the ICMJE in the "instruction for authors," geographical region of publication and statements about clinical trial registration.

Results: Of the 92 urology journals examined, only one-third (32/92) mentioned the EQUATOR network in their "instructions for authors." A total of 17 journals (17/92, 18.5%) did not mention a single reporting guideline. The most endorsed guideline was CONSORT at 67.4% (62/92). Clinical trial registration was not mentioned by 28 (30%), recommended by 27 (29%), and required by 37 journals (40%).

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that urology journals inconsistently endorse reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Based on these results, we propose that urology journals adopt a standardized approach, incorporating explicit requirements for reporting guidelines such as those listed on the EQUATOR Network and clinical trial registration for all relevant study designs. Specifically, journals should consider clearly stating mandatory or recommended guidelines for clinical trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews, among others. Future efforts should focus on evaluating the implementation of these policies and identifying barriers that hinder their adoption.

泌尿科医学期刊对报告指南和临床试验注册的认可:一项横断面研究
导读:多年来,泌尿系统疾病的资金稳步增长,从2018年的5.41亿美元增加到2020年的5.87亿美元。与此同时,从2011年到2018年,泌尿科期刊的总数也有了显著的增加。研究经费和期刊出版物的激增要求泌尿科医生有效地在大量证据中进行导航,以做出最佳的循证临床决策。我们的主要目的是评估这些期刊的“作者指南”,以确定医学研究中常见研究设计报告指南的认可程度。方法:采用2021年Scopus CiteScore筛选泌尿科顶级期刊,并通过谷歌Scholar Metrics h5 index进行确认。以一种隐蔽的、重复的方式,两名调查人员从被纳入期刊的“作者指南”网页上检索数据。对于我们研究中调查的每一本期刊,提取了以下数据:期刊名称、5年影响因子、期刊编辑的电子邮件回复、“作者指南”中提到EQUATOR网络、“作者指南”中提到ICMJE、发表的地理区域和关于临床试验注册的声明。结果:在所调查的92份泌尿学期刊中,只有三分之一(32/92)在其“作者指南”中提到了EQUATOR网络。共有17份期刊(17/92,18.5%)未提及单一报道指南。认可最多的指南是CONSORT, 67.4%(62/92)。28种(30%)期刊未提及临床试验注册,27种(29%)期刊推荐临床试验注册,37种(40%)期刊要求临床试验注册。结论:我们的研究结果表明泌尿外科期刊不一致地支持报告指南和临床试验注册。基于这些结果,我们建议泌尿学期刊采用标准化的方法,纳入明确的报告指南要求,如赤道网络上列出的要求和所有相关研究设计的临床试验注册。具体而言,期刊应考虑明确说明临床试验、观察性研究和系统评价等方面的强制性或推荐性指南。今后的努力应侧重于评价这些政策的执行情况,并查明阻碍其采用的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PeerJ
PeerJ MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
1665
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. At PeerJ, authors take out a lifetime publication plan (for as little as $99) which allows them to publish articles in the journal for free, forever. PeerJ has 5 Nobel Prize Winners on the Board; they have won several industry and media awards; and they are widely recognized as being one of the most interesting recent developments in academic publishing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信