ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
EQUATOR reporting guideline use and editorial enforcement in four medical specialties: a cross-sectional study of 20 high-impact journals.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research) reporting guidelines aim to improve transparency and completeness in biomedical research; however, their adoption remains inconsistent across medical specialties. We quantified declared reporting guideline use in high-impact ophthalmology journals and assessed whether editorial policies are associated with their implementation across specialties.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of original research articles published in 2024 across five first-quartile ophthalmology journals. Reporting guideline use was identified through systematic full-text searches. An "advisable use rate" was defined as the proportion of articles declaring guideline use among those for which use was methodologically appropriate. Journal enforcement policies were characterized through analysis of instructions for authors. Guideline use in ophthalmology was contextualized through comparison with previously published datasets from orthopedics, rheumatology, and infectious diseases.
resultsAmong 794 original research articles, reporting guidelines were deemed advisable for 672 (84.6%). Of these, 192 articles (28.6%) declared guideline use. Advisable use rates ranged from 5% to 120% across journals. STROBE was the most frequently applicable guideline but was declared in only 27% of eligible articles. Ophthalmology guideline use exceeded orthopedics (10.2%), rheumatology (7.2%), and infectious diseases (6.3%). Although enforcement policies varied across journals, no significant correlation was observed between enforcement level and guideline use (Kendall's τ = 0.24, p > 0.05).
conclusionsDespite higher adoption relative to other specialties, reporting guideline use in ophthalmology remains limited. Substantial inter-journal variability and the absence of an association between enforcement policies and use highlight opportunities to better align editorial expectations with reporting practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.