Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jun 1;6(6):e2317651.
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.17651.

Reminding Peer Reviewers of Reporting Guideline Items to Improve Completeness in Published Articles: Primary Results of 2 Randomized Trials

Benjamin Speich  1   2 , Erika Mann  3 , Christof M Schönenberger  2 , Katie Mellor  1 , Alexandra N Griessbach  2 , Paula Dhiman  1   4 , Pooja Gandhi  5   6 , Szimonetta Lohner  7   8 , Arnav Agarwal  9   10 , Ayodele Odutayo  1   11 , Iratxe Puebla  3   12   13 , Alejandra Clark  3 , An-Wen Chan  14 , Michael M Schlussel  1   4 , Philippe Ravaud  15   16 , David Moher  17   18 , Matthias Briel  2   9 , Isabelle Boutron  15   16 , Sara Schroter  19   20 , Sally Hopewell  1
Affiliations

Reminding Peer Reviewers of Reporting Guideline Items to Improve Completeness in Published Articles: Primary Results of 2 Randomized Trials

Benjamin Speich et al. JAMA Netw Open. .

Abstract

Importance: Numerous studies have shown that adherence to reporting guidelines is suboptimal.

Objective: To evaluate whether asking peer reviewers to check if specific reporting guideline items were adequately reported would improve adherence to reporting guidelines in published articles.

Design, setting, and participants: Two parallel-group, superiority randomized trials were performed using manuscripts submitted to 7 biomedical journals (5 from the BMJ Publishing Group and 2 from the Public Library of Science) as the unit of randomization, with peer reviewers allocated to the intervention or control group.

Interventions: The first trial (CONSORT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented randomized clinical trial (RCT) results and reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline, and the second trial (SPIRIT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented RCT protocols and reported following the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline. The CONSORT-PR trial included manuscripts that described RCT primary results (submitted July 2019 to July 2021). The SPIRIT-PR trial included manuscripts that contained RCT protocols (submitted June 2020 to May 2021). Manuscripts in both trials were randomized (1:1) to the intervention or control group; the control group received usual journal practice. In the intervention group of both trials, peer reviewers received an email from the journal that asked them to check whether the 10 most important and poorly reported CONSORT (for CONSORT-PR) or SPIRIT (for SPIRIT-PR) items were adequately reported in the manuscript. Peer reviewers and authors were not informed of the purpose of the study, and outcome assessors were blinded.

Main outcomes and measures: The difference in the mean proportion of adequately reported 10 CONSORT or SPIRIT items between the intervention and control groups in published articles.

Results: In the CONSORT-PR trial, 510 manuscripts were randomized. Of those, 243 were published (122 in the intervention group and 121 in the control group). A mean proportion of 69.3% (95% CI, 66.0%-72.7%) of the 10 CONSORT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 66.6% (95% CI, 62.5%-70.7%) in the control group (mean difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -2.6% to 8.0%). In the SPIRIT-PR trial, of the 244 randomized manuscripts, 178 were published (90 in the intervention group and 88 in the control group). A mean proportion of 46.1% (95% CI, 41.8%-50.4%) of the 10 SPIRIT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 45.6% (95% CI, 41.7% to 49.4%) in the control group (mean difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.2% to 6.3%).

Conclusions and relevance: These 2 randomized trials found that it was not useful to implement the tested intervention to increase reporting completeness in published articles. Other interventions should be assessed and considered in the future.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT05820971 (CONSORT-PR) and NCT05820984 (SPIRIT-PR).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Speich reported receiving grants from Moderna outside the submitted work. Ms Mann reported being currently employed at PLOS. Dr Puebla reported being currently employed at PLOS. Dr Clark reported being an editor for PLOS ONE. Dr Schroter reported being currently employed at The BMJ. Dr Hopewell, Dr Moher, and Dr Boutron are members of the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Executive and authors of the CONSORT 2010 statement. Dr Chan and Dr Moher are authors of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). Dr Moher, Dr Schlussel, Dr Dhiman, and Dr Ravaud are members of the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Research) network. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Flowcharts for the CONSORT for Peer Review (CONSORT-PR) and SPIRIT for Peer Review (SPIRIT-PR) Trials
RCT indicates randomized clinical trial.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Difference in the Mean Proportion of Adequately Reported CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) Items in the CONSORT for Peer Review (CONSORT-PR) and SPIRIT for Peer Review (SPIRIT-PR) Trials
NA indicates not applicable.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010;8:24. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Simera I, Altman DG. ACP Journal Club. Editorial: Writing a research article that is “fit for purpose”: EQUATOR Network and reporting guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):JC2-JC2, JC2-JC3. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-02002 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291(20):2457-2465. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457 - DOI - PubMed
    1. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group . A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1994;272(24):1926-1931. doi: 10.1001/jama.1994.03520240054041 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Altman DG, Simera I. A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. J R Soc Med. 2016;109(2):67-77. doi: 10.1177/0141076815625599 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data