Abstract
Objective To assess whether 16 of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network–related reporting guidelines were used in rheumatology publications.
Methods This was a cross-sectional study of research articles published in 5 high-performance rheumatology-focused journals in 2019. All articles were (1) manually reviewed to assess whether the use of a reporting guideline could be advisable, and (2) searched for the names and acronyms (eg, CONSORT [Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials], STROBE [Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology]) of 16 reporting guidelines. To calculate the "advisable use rate," the number of articles for which a guideline was used was divided by the number of articles for which the guideline was advised. Descriptive statistics were used.
Results We reviewed 895 manuscripts across the 5 journals. The use of a guideline was deemed advisable for 693 (77%) articles. Reporting guidelines were used in 50 articles, representing 5.6% of total articles and 7.2% (95% CI 5-9) of articles for which guidelines were advised. The advisable use rate boundaries within which a guideline was applied by the journals were 0.03 to 0.10 for any guideline, 0 to 0.26 for CONSORT, 0.01 to 0.07 for STROBE, 0 to 0.8 for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), and 0 to 0.14 for Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). No identifiable trends in the variables studied were observed across the 5 journals.
Conclusion The limited use of reporting guidelines appears counterintuitive, considering that guidelines are promoted by journals and are intended to help authors report relevant information. Whether this finding is attributable to issues with the diffusion, awareness, acceptance, or perceived usefulness of the guidelines remains to be clarified.
