Reporting Quality of Trend Analyses Published in Leading Medicine and Oncology Journals during 2008-2018

Reporting quality in clinical research is critical for evidence-based medicine and reproducibility of clinical studies. Previous work has mostly focused on the reporting quality of clinical trials and observational longitudinal studies. However, few studies have examined the reporting quality of trend analyses. Moreover, the reporting of recommended statistical metrics in trend analyses remains largely unclear. Therefore, we assessed the reporting quality of trend analyses based on reporting of recommended statistical metrics. We systematically searched the PubMed for the trend-analysis articles published in 10 leading medicine and oncology journals over an 11-year period (2008-2018). Studies published after 2019 were excluded due to a sudden, significant increase in publication numbers during and immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic. Only original articles, research letters, and meta-analyses/systematic reviews were included. We scored the reporting quality of these articles based on whether they reported <i>p</i>-values, effect sizes, beta/coefficient/slope/annual-percentage-change (APC). 297 articles met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 193 (66.0%) reported <i>p</i>-values and 216 (72.7%) reported effect sizes. Only 13 (5.8%) analyses reported neither <i>p</i>-values/effect sizes nor beta/coefficient/slope/APC. In multivariable regression models, authors affiliated with epidemiology departments were less likely to report effect sizes, whereas those from statistics departments were more likely to do so. Interestingly, U.S.-based senior authors (versus non-U.S.) more likely reported <i>p</i>-values. No factors were independently associated with reporting APC. Overall, the reporting quality of trend analyses in leading medicine and oncology journals appears moderate and warrants improvement. We thus call for increased awareness and further research on reporting quality in trend analyses in oncology research and beyond.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Exploratory Research and Hypothesis in Medicine
Published
2025-10-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.14218/erhm.2025.00039
Primary Topic
Academic Publishing and Open Access
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Reporting Quality of Trend Analyses Published in Leading Medicine and Oncology Journals during 2008-2018

Lanjing Zhang, Xiaoling Yuan, Yating Wang, Fei Deng
Exploratory Research and Hypothesis in Medicine
Academic Publishing and Open Access
article

Reporting Quality of Trend Analyses Published in Leading Medicine and Oncology Journals during 2008-2018

Lanjing Zhang, Xiaoling Yuan, Yating Wang, Fei Deng
article en

Abstract

Reporting quality in clinical research is critical for evidence-based medicine and reproducibility of clinical studies. Previous work has mostly focused on the reporting quality of clinical trials and observational longitudinal studies. However, few studies have examined the reporting quality of trend analyses. Moreover, the reporting of recommended statistical metrics in trend analyses remains largely unclear. Therefore, we assessed the reporting quality of trend analyses based on reporting of recommended statistical metrics. We systematically searched the PubMed for the trend-analysis articles published in 10 leading medicine and oncology journals over an 11-year period (2008-2018). Studies published after 2019 were excluded due to a sudden, significant increase in publication numbers during and immediately after the COVID-19 pandemic. Only original articles, research letters, and meta-analyses/systematic reviews were included. We scored the reporting quality of these articles based on whether they reported <i>p</i>-values, effect sizes, beta/coefficient/slope/annual-percentage-change (APC). 297 articles met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 193 (66.0%) reported <i>p</i>-values and 216 (72.7%) reported effect sizes. Only 13 (5.8%) analyses reported neither <i>p</i>-values/effect sizes nor beta/coefficient/slope/APC. In multivariable regression models, authors affiliated with epidemiology departments were less likely to report effect sizes, whereas those from statistics departments were more likely to do so. Interestingly, U.S.-based senior authors (versus non-U.S.) more likely reported <i>p</i>-values. No factors were independently associated with reporting APC. Overall, the reporting quality of trend analyses in leading medicine and oncology journals appears moderate and warrants improvement. We thus call for increased awareness and further research on reporting quality in trend analyses in oncology research and beyond.

Exploratory Research and Hypothesis in MedicineVol. 10(4)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), Ascension (US), Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN), University Medical Center of Princeton (US), Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital (CN), Rutgers Cancer Institute (US)
National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Academic Publishing and Open Access
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.