Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Family medicine, vital for patient care but underfunded, prompts an evaluation of how family medicine journals endorse, require, and advocate for reporting guidelines (RGs), clinical trial, and systematic review registration.
OBJECTIVE: Assess endorsement and requirement of RGs, and the stance on clinical trial and systematic review registration in family medicine journals, impacting research quality and transparency.
METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 43 \"Family Practice\" journals, identified through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore. Editors-in-Chief were contacted to confirm article types. Data extracted from \"instructions to authors\" pages focused on RG recommendations, requirements, and trial registration.
METHODS: To ensure confidentiality and prevent bias, authors independently extracted data on RG utilisation, adherence, and clinical trial registration provide a overview of research standards.
RESULTS: Of 43 journals, the most recommended guidelines were CONSORT (69%), PRISMA (58%), and STROBE (60%). The most required were PRISMA (16%) and CONSORT (11%). Clinical trial registration was recommended or required by 67% of journals. Additionally, 40 out of the 43 (93%) journals cited at least one reporting guideline in their instructions to authors.
CONCLUSIONS: Family medicine journals exhibit varied endorsement and requirement patterns for RGs and clinical trial registration. While guidelines like CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE are acknowledged, caution is needed in presuming a direct link to enhanced research quality. A nuanced approach, promoting diverse reporting guidelines and rigorous study registration, is essential for elevating transparency and advancing research standards in family medicine.
OBJECTIVE: Assess endorsement and requirement of RGs, and the stance on clinical trial and systematic review registration in family medicine journals, impacting research quality and transparency.
METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 43 \"Family Practice\" journals, identified through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore. Editors-in-Chief were contacted to confirm article types. Data extracted from \"instructions to authors\" pages focused on RG recommendations, requirements, and trial registration.
METHODS: To ensure confidentiality and prevent bias, authors independently extracted data on RG utilisation, adherence, and clinical trial registration provide a overview of research standards.
RESULTS: Of 43 journals, the most recommended guidelines were CONSORT (69%), PRISMA (58%), and STROBE (60%). The most required were PRISMA (16%) and CONSORT (11%). Clinical trial registration was recommended or required by 67% of journals. Additionally, 40 out of the 43 (93%) journals cited at least one reporting guideline in their instructions to authors.
CONCLUSIONS: Family medicine journals exhibit varied endorsement and requirement patterns for RGs and clinical trial registration. While guidelines like CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE are acknowledged, caution is needed in presuming a direct link to enhanced research quality. A nuanced approach, promoting diverse reporting guidelines and rigorous study registration, is essential for elevating transparency and advancing research standards in family medicine.
摘要：
背景：家庭医学，对病人护理至关重要，但资金不足，提示对家庭医学期刊如何认可的评估，需要,并倡导报告指南(RG)，临床试验,和系统的审查登记。
目标：评估RGs的认可和要求，以及家庭医学期刊对临床试验和系统评价注册的立场，影响研究质量和透明度。
方法：对43种“家庭实践”期刊的横截面分析，通过2021年ScopusCiteScore确定。已联系总编辑以确认文章类型。从“给作者的说明”页面中提取的数据侧重于RG建议，requirements,和试用登记。
方法：为了确保机密性并防止偏见，作者独立提取了RG利用率的数据，坚持,和临床试验注册提供了研究标准的概述。
结果：在43个期刊中，最推荐的指南是CONSORT(69%)，PRISMA（58%），和STROBE（60％）。最需要的是PRISMA（16％）和CONSORT（11％）。67％的期刊推荐或要求进行临床试验注册。此外,43种期刊中有40种(93%)在给作者的说明中引用了至少一种报告指南。
结论：家庭医学期刊对RGs和临床试验注册具有不同的认可和要求模式。虽然像CONSORT这样的准则，PRISMA,和STROBE被承认，在假定与提高研究质量有直接联系时需要谨慎。细致入微的方法，促进多样化的报告准则和严格的研究登记，对于提高家庭医学的透明度和推进研究标准至关重要。
目标：评估RGs的认可和要求，以及家庭医学期刊对临床试验和系统评价注册的立场，影响研究质量和透明度。
方法：对43种“家庭实践”期刊的横截面分析，通过2021年ScopusCiteScore确定。已联系总编辑以确认文章类型。从“给作者的说明”页面中提取的数据侧重于RG建议，requirements,和试用登记。
方法：为了确保机密性并防止偏见，作者独立提取了RG利用率的数据，坚持,和临床试验注册提供了研究标准的概述。
结果：在43个期刊中，最推荐的指南是CONSORT(69%)，PRISMA（58%），和STROBE（60％）。最需要的是PRISMA（16％）和CONSORT（11％）。67％的期刊推荐或要求进行临床试验注册。此外,43种期刊中有40种(93%)在给作者的说明中引用了至少一种报告指南。
结论：家庭医学期刊对RGs和临床试验注册具有不同的认可和要求模式。虽然像CONSORT这样的准则，PRISMA,和STROBE被承认，在假定与提高研究质量有直接联系时需要谨慎。细致入微的方法，促进多样化的报告准则和严格的研究登记，对于提高家庭医学的透明度和推进研究标准至关重要。
