Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25685339›Full record

ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2015

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

Tanya A Smith, Priyantha Kulatilake, Lucy J Brown, James Wigley, Waseem Hameed, Saran Shantikumar

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. More accurate reporting of surgical techniques would be SUPER.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tanya A SmithDepartment of Vascular Pathology, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS2 8HW, UK.
Priyantha KulatilakeDepartment of Vascular Pathology, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS2 8HW, UK.
Lucy J BrownWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
James WigleyDepartment of Critical Care, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Waseem HameedNuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.
Saran ShantikumarDepartment of Vascular Pathology, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS2 8HW, UK ; Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsGuidance 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsCompared 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.

conclusionsSurgery 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.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsConflict of interestsEditorial policiesGuidelinesJournalism

Identifiers

PMID25685339
PMCPMC4323756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.