The following is a summary of “Evaluating guideline and registration policies among neurology journals: a cross-sectional analysis,” published in the September 2024 issue of Neurology by Tran et al.
The increasing prevalence of neurological disorders necessitates rigorous study, but current studies often lack transparency and reproducibility. Implementing reporting guidelines (RG) can help improve the quality of neurological research.
Researchers conducted a retrospective study evaluating the publishing policies of top neurology journals regarding RGs and trial registration.
They identified neurology journals using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore Tool. The top 100 journals were listed and screened. In a masked, duplicate fashion, investigators extracted data on journal characteristics, policies on RGs, and policies on trial registration using information from each journal’s Instruction for Authors webpage. Additionally, investigators contacted journal editors to ensure the information was current and accurate. No human participants were involved, and data collection and analyses were performed (December 14, 2022, to January 9, 2023).
The results showed that 356 neurology journals and the top 100 were included. The 5-year impact of the journals ranged from 50.844 to 2.226 (mean [SD], 7.82 [7.01]), 25 (25.0%) journals did not require or recommend a single RG within the Instructions for Authors webpage, and a third (33.0%) did not need or recommend clinical trial registration. The most frequently mentioned RGs were CONSORT (64.6%), PRISMA (52.5%), and ARRIVE (53.1%). The least mentioned RG was QUOROM (1.0%), followed by MOOSE (9.0%) and SQUIRE (17.9%).
They concluded that despite progress in adopting reporting guidelines and trial registries, neurology research still has room for improvement, which was crucial for advancing the field and benefiting patients.
Source: bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12883-024-03839-1
