Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration across urological medical journals: a cross-sectional study
Our findings indicate that urology journals inconsistently endorse reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Based on these results, we propose that urology journals adopt a standardized approach, incorporating explicit requirements for reporting guidelines such as those listed on the EQUATOR Network and clinical trial registration for all relevant study designs. Specifically, journals should consider clearly stating mandatory or recommended guidelines for clinical trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews, among others. Future efforts should focus on evaluating the implementation of these policies and identifying barriers that hinder their adoption.
Authors
- Trevor Magee (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1753-3044)
- Danya Nees (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9882-415X)
- Caleb Smith (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8270-3938)
- Matt Vassar (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2859-6152)
- Griffin Hughes (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3863-7915)
- Alex Hagood (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2732-1117)
- Joseph T. Case
Institutions
- Oklahoma State University Medical Center (US)
Publication Details
- Journal
- PeerJ
- Published
- 2024-12-10
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.18619
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.46