The Quality of Methodological Reporting of Cross-Sectional Articles Published in Iranian and Top Nursing and Midwifery Journals Indexed in the Scopus Database

Insufficient reporting of cross-sectional articles in scientific journals reduces the validity of the articles or makes them impossible to evaluate. It also reduces the number of citations of articles. This research aims to investigate the adherence of methodological section reports in Iranian nursing and midwifery journals (IRNMJ) to those in top international nursing and midwifery journals (INNMJ) indexed in the Scopus database and to compare the growth trend of methodological section reports in these two groups. A descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was used. Using the STROBE statement in the methodology section, a 19-item instrument was prepared to collect information. 8 Iranian journals with 462 articles and 3 top Scopus journals with 327 articles were evaluated. The quality score of the methodological report of each article was calculated and analyzed using SPSS 19 software. The results of the study showed that the percentage of agreement with the STROBE statement was 75% in the IRNMJ and 85% in the INNMJ. In both groups of journals, some methodological reporting items, such as efforts to address potential sources of bias, had a low percentage of reporting, which has increased over time. From a scientific point of view, increasing the use of reporting guidelines can help to check the validity of the research and also increase the number of citations to the articles. Therefore, it is recommended that editors and reviewers of scientific journals in the field of nursing and midwifery place more emphasis on following reporting guidelines.