From principles to practice: the completeness of reporting and transparency of target trial emulations in Type 2 diabetes research

Despite the increasing application of target trial emulation (TTE) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) research, the reporting completeness and transparency of TTE studies have not been comprehensively assessed. This study aimed to characterize item-level reporting of TTE studies in T2DM according to the Transparent Reporting of Observational Studies Emulating a Target Trial (TARGET) statement and to compare reporting before and after its publication. TTE studies in T2DM were searched on PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Two reviewers independently screened the records and extracted basic study characteristics, features of the target trial specification and its observational emulation, and item-level reporting completeness according to the TARGET statement. Reporting proportions were summarized descriptively and compared between studies published before and after the release of TARGET statement in 2025, with absolute differences and 95% confidence intervals. Of 1,580 records identified, 229 studies were included (93.0% published in 2024–2026). 157 were classified as pre-TARGET and 69 as post-TARGET; three studies could not be classified. Reporting was most complete for eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, outcomes, follow-up, and causal contrasts (96.9%–100.0% at the emulation stage), whereas the target trial assignment procedures (44.5%), the target trial data analysis plan (11.8%), identifying assumptions (5.7% for the specification; 2.6% for the emulation), and the frequency of missing data (3.5%) were infrequently reported. After the release of TARGET, reporting improved for causal contrasts (increasing 16.0% points; 95% CI, 4.7%–25.0%) and follow-up (increasing 11.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%–19.4%), whereas identifying assumptions (4.3% for the specification; 4.3% for the emulation) and the frequency of missing data (5.8%) remained underreported among post-TARGET studies. Although reporting of key TTE components was generally complete, important gaps remained in causal identifying assumptions and missing data. Greater adherence to the TARGET statement is needed to improve the transparency and completeness of TTE reporting. This systematic review finds that while causal estimands are generally well reported in both the target trial specification and its observational emulation in type 2 diabetes research, important gaps persist in reporting transparency and completeness. Key shortcomings include limited reporting of causal identifying assumptions and missing data. Future studies should enhance reporting completeness and transparency by stating causal identifying assumptions, reporting the frequency of missing data, and adhering more closely to the TARGET statement.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2026-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-026-03071-0
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

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

From principles to practice: the completeness of reporting and transparency of target trial emulations in Type 2 diabetes research

Qiyao Fu, Jinyang Xing, 牛素平, Shan Chen et al.
5 links
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

From principles to practice: the completeness of reporting and transparency of target trial emulations in Type 2 diabetes research

Qiyao Fu, Jinyang Xing, 牛素平, Shan Chen, Zheng Liu, Wenhui Ren, Yingying Su, Huixin Liu, Yan Jin, Jie Li
article en

Abstract

Despite the increasing application of target trial emulation (TTE) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) research, the reporting completeness and transparency of TTE studies have not been comprehensively assessed. This study aimed to characterize item-level reporting of TTE studies in T2DM according to the Transparent Reporting of Observational Studies Emulating a Target Trial (TARGET) statement and to compare reporting before and after its publication. TTE studies in T2DM were searched on PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Two reviewers independently screened the records and extracted basic study characteristics, features of the target trial specification and its observational emulation, and item-level reporting completeness according to the TARGET statement. Reporting proportions were summarized descriptively and compared between studies published before and after the release of TARGET statement in 2025, with absolute differences and 95% confidence intervals. Of 1,580 records identified, 229 studies were included (93.0% published in 2024–2026). 157 were classified as pre-TARGET and 69 as post-TARGET; three studies could not be classified. Reporting was most complete for eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, outcomes, follow-up, and causal contrasts (96.9%–100.0% at the emulation stage), whereas the target trial assignment procedures (44.5%), the target trial data analysis plan (11.8%), identifying assumptions (5.7% for the specification; 2.6% for the emulation), and the frequency of missing data (3.5%) were infrequently reported. After the release of TARGET, reporting improved for causal contrasts (increasing 16.0% points; 95% CI, 4.7%–25.0%) and follow-up (increasing 11.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%–19.4%), whereas identifying assumptions (4.3% for the specification; 4.3% for the emulation) and the frequency of missing data (5.8%) remained underreported among post-TARGET studies. Although reporting of key TTE components was generally complete, important gaps remained in causal identifying assumptions and missing data. Greater adherence to the TARGET statement is needed to improve the transparency and completeness of TTE reporting. This systematic review finds that while causal estimands are generally well reported in both the target trial specification and its observational emulation in type 2 diabetes research, important gaps persist in reporting transparency and completeness. Key shortcomings include limited reporting of causal identifying assumptions and missing data. Future studies should enhance reporting completeness and transparency by stating causal identifying assumptions, reporting the frequency of missing data, and adhering more closely to the TARGET statement.

BMC Medical Research Methodology
Chinese Center For Disease Control and Prevention (CN), Xiamen University (CN), Peking University (CN), National Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention (CN), Peking University People's Hospital (CN)
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
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.

Laika access coming soon