A survey of instructions to authors in surgical journals on reporting by CONSORT and PRISMA

INTRODUCTION Guidance has been published on how best to report randomised controlled trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials – CONSORT) and systematic reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – PRISMA). The aim of this study was to establish to what extent surgical journals formally endorse CONSORT and PRISMA in the respective reporting of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews. METHODS Overall, 136 surgical journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports® were studied. Author guidelines were scrutinised for the following guidance: conflict of interests (COI), the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM), clinical trial registration, CONSORT and PRISMA. RESULTS The frequency of guidance endorsement was found to be as follows: COI 82%, URM 62%, trial registration 32%, CONSORT 29% and PRISMA 10%. Journals with a higher impact were more likely to adopt trial registration, CONSORT and PRISMA. Journals with editorial offices in the UK were more likely to insist on disclosure of COI and to endorse CONSORT. CONCLUSIONS Guidelines produced to improve publication practice have not been implemented widely by surgical journals. This may contribute to an overall poorer quality of published research. Editors of surgical journals should uniformly endorse reporting guidance and update their instructions to authors to reflect this. In an age of burgeoning research in surgery, there is a need to improve the standards of reporting. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews offer the highest quality research and guidance has been well publicised as to how best to report these. First published in 19961 and most recently updated in 2010,2 the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement provides recommendations on how to report parallel group RCTs. A similar guideline exists for the reporting of systematic reviews: initially named QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses),3 it was updated in 2009 and published under PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses).4 Both CONSORT and PRISMA contain a checklist of items that are essential for transparent reporting. A recent systematic review revealed that journal adaptation of the CONSORT guidelines resulted in an improvement in reporting of RCTs.5 Furthermore, a survey of highest impact medical journals found that only a third required CONSORT in the reporting of RCTs.6 No such evidence exists yet for the implementation of PRISMA in the current literature. All relevant information about a study should be reported to allow readers and users of the research to assess its validity. The editorial practice in surgery to this regard has not yet been scrutinised. The aim of this study was to establish to what extent surgical journals formally endorse CONSORT and PRISMA, as well as other published guidance, in the respective reporting of RCTs and systematic reviews.