Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40333833›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

A cross-sectional study on the endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration among immunology and allergy journals.

Adam Khan, Tim Smith, Asaad Chaudhry, Caleb A Smith, Danya Nees, Griffin Hughes, Kaylyn Rowsey, Matt Vassar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Adam KhanOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1358-5119
Tim SmithOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Asaad ChaudhryOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Caleb A SmithDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kanas, United States of America.
Danya NeesThe Neurology Residency Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Griffin HughesOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Kaylyn RowseyOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States of America.
Matt VassarOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare practitioners rely on research based on solid evidence for their clinical decisions, ensuring the provision of safe and effective patient care. The use of reporting guidelines and the registration of clinical trials enhance the reliability and credibility of research findings by promoting transparency and minimizing potential biases. However, it remains uncertain to what extent leading immunology and allergy journals have embraced these tools. This study aims to evaluate how commonly reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration are required and endorsed within leading immunology and allergy journals.

methodsWe identified the top 100 journals in the subcategory of "Immunology and Allergy" using the Scopus CiteScore tool for the year 2021. We thoroughly reviewed the "Instructions for Authors" section of each journal, focusing on indications related to specific reporting guidelines as outlined by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network, as well as the practice of clinical trial registration. Our documentation categorized statements as "Not Mentioned," "Recommended," "Not Accepted," or "Required." The category "Not Accepted" specifically indicated that the journal explicitly did not accept the study designs associated with certain reporting guidelines, rather than implying bias against these guidelines. ensure equitable evaluation, we communicated with each journal to confirm the types of articles they accepted.

resultsAmong the 100 journals assessed, the CONSORT guideline emerged as the most frequently cited, with 60 journals recommending adherence and 13 requiring it. Conversely, the QUOROM guideline was the least commonly cited, with merely two journals recommending its adherence and none requiring it. Nineteen journals did not reference a single reporting guideline. Remarkably, clinical trial registration was required by 42 journals and recommended by 34.

conclusionThis study reveals variation in the adoption of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration in immunology and allergy journals. While some journals strongly advocate for or require these practices, others do not emphasize them at all. This inconsistency affects research rigor and reproducibility, highlighting the need for stricter enforcement. Editors should encourage these practices to enhance transparency and minimize biases.

Indexed as

Allergy and ImmunologyPeriodicals as TopicClinical Trials as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesGuidelines as TopicHumansRegistriesResearch DesignResearch Report

Identifiers

PMID40333833
PMCPMC12057991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.