OBJECTIVE: In the context of ophthalmologic practice, there has been a rapid increase in the amount of data collected using electronic health records (EHR). Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising means of centralizing data collection and analysis, but to date, most AI algorithms have only been applied to analyzing image data in ophthalmologic practice. In this review we aimed to characterize the use of AI in the analysis of EHR, and to critically appraise the adherence of each included study to the CONSORT-AI reporting guideline.
METHODS: A comprehensive search of three relevant databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) from January 2010 to February 2023 was conducted. The included studies were evaluated for reporting quality based on the AI-specific items from the CONSORT-AI reporting guideline.
RESULTS: Of the 4,968 articles identified by our search, 89 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Most of the studies utilized AI for ocular disease prediction (n = 41, 46.1%), and diabetic retinopathy was the most studied ocular pathology (n = 19, 21.3%). The overall mean CONSORT-AI score across the 14 measured items was 12.1 (range 8-14, median 12). Categories with the lowest adherence rates were: describing handling of poor quality data (48.3%), specifying participant inclusion and exclusion criteria (56.2%), and detailing access to the AI intervention or its code, including any restrictions (62.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we have identified that AI is prominently being used for disease prediction in ophthalmology clinics, however these algorithms are limited by their lack of generalizability and cross-center reproducibility. A standardized framework for AI reporting should be developed, to improve AI applications in the management of ocular disease and ophthalmology decision making.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which nephrology journals recommend and require reporting guideline adherence and clinical trial registration.
BACKGROUND: Despite a rising disease burden, research published on chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the field of nephrology has failed to keep pace and is limited. To improve the quality of research in the field of nephrology, reporting guidelines have been developed to minimize such deficits in research quality. However, the extent to which nephrology journals require and use reporting guidelines in addition to clinical trial registration is unknown.
METHODS: Sixty-two Nephrology journals were selected through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. Each journal\'s Instructions for Authors was assessed to determine endorsement of study design-specific reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. Researchers used R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio to create data summaries of descriptive statistics for nephrology journal reporting guidelines.
RESULTS: Clinical trial registration was required by 52% (32/62) of nephrology journals within our sample. The reporting guideline for clinical trials, CONSORT, was required by 17.74% (11/62) of journals. The EQUATOR Network was mentioned by 46.77% (29/62) of journals, while 9.67% (6/62) failed to mention the ICMJE. The reporting guideline for systematic review, PRISMA, was only required by 12.90% (8/62) of journals. When contacting journal editors, 9.67% (6/62) responded and 4.83% (3/62) provided clarifying information.
CONCLUSIONS: Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration are suboptimally required and recommended by nephrology journals. Their adoption may decrease bias and increase research quality. Thus, nephrology journals should consider a more complete endorsement of these safeguards.

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.

The number of papers presenting machine learning (ML) models that are being submitted to and published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and other JMIR Publications journals has steadily increased. Editors and peer reviewers involved in the review process for such manuscripts often go through multiple review cycles to enhance the quality and completeness of reporting. The use of reporting guidelines or checklists can help ensure consistency in the quality of submitted (and published) scientific manuscripts and, for example, avoid instances of missing information. In this Editorial, the editors of JMIR Publications journals discuss the general JMIR Publications policy regarding authors\' application of reporting guidelines and specifically focus on the reporting of ML studies in JMIR Publications journals, using the Consolidated Reporting of Machine Learning Studies (CREMLS) guidelines, with an example of how authors and other journals could use the CREMLS checklist to ensure transparency and rigor in reporting.

The aim of this study is to determine the adherence rate to reporting guidelines in published otolaryngology research. We performed an evidence-based review of all original clinical research published in 2021 in five otolaryngology journals for adherence to the appropriate guideline for the study type by evaluating whether the corresponding reporting guideline was mentioned in the body of the published manuscript. There were 1140 original research articles included in this study. Most studies were observational, for which the STROBE reporting guidelines are recommended (n = 791, 70.3%). All studies had an average adherence rate of 16.8% (n = 192/1140). The STROBE adherence rate was 4.9%, with JAMA Otolaryngology having the highest proportion of observation studies using the STROBE guidelines (23/49, 46.9%). Reporting guidelines are important tools to use in presenting original research. The use of these guidelines varies in the otolaryngology literature and highlights the ongoing need to support research reproducibility and usefulness.

A set of guidelines has been developed to help improve reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies. The need for enhanced transparency when reporting trials of this family of integrative health practices, e.g., External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, has been advocated in systematic reviews of these studies. The guidelines, called Biofield Therapies: Reporting Evidence Guidelines (BiFi REGs), supplement CONSORT 2010 by including details of the intervention protocols relevant to biofield therapy trials. BiFi REGs evolved through a draft document created by a core group, two rounds of a Delphi process with an international group of subject matter experts and two panels, meeting via Zoom, which included editors of complementary and integrative medicine journals. BiFi REGs comprises a 15-item Intervention checklist. Modifications of two other CONSORT topic areas are also proposed to enhance their relevance to trials of biofield therapies. Included for each item are an explanation, and exemplars of reporting from peer-reviewed published reports of biofield therapy trials. When used in conjunction with all other items from CONSORT 2010, we anticipate that BiFi REGs will expedite the peer review process for biofield therapy trials, facilitate attempts at trial replication and help to inform decision-making in the clinical practice of biofield therapies.

A set of guidelines has been developed to help improve reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies. The need for enhanced transparency when reporting trials of this family of integrative health practices, e.g., External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, has been advocated in systematic reviews of these studies. The guidelines, called Biofield Therapies: Reporting Evidence Guidelines (BiFi REGs), supplement CONSORT 2010 by including details of the intervention protocols relevant to biofield therapy trials. BiFi REGs evolved through a draft document created by a core group, two rounds of a Delphi process with an international group of subject matter experts and two panels, meeting via Zoom, which included editors of complementary and integrative medicine journals. BiFi REGs comprises a 15-item Intervention checklist. Modifications of two other CONSORT topic areas are also proposed to enhance their relevance to trials of biofield therapies. Included for each item are an explanation, and exemplars of reporting from peer-reviewed published reports of biofield therapy trials. When used in conjunction with all other items from CONSORT 2010, we anticipate that BiFi REGs will expedite the peer review process for biofield therapy trials, facilitate attempts at trial replication and help to inform decision-making in the clinical practice of biofield therapies.

A set of guidelines has been developed to help improve reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies. The need for enhanced transparency when reporting trials of this family of integrative health practices, eg, External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, has been advocated in systematic reviews of these studies. The guidelines, called Biofield Therapies: Reporting Evidence Guidelines (BiFi REGs), supplement CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 by including details of the intervention protocols relevant to biofield therapy trials. BiFi REGs evolved through a draft document created by a core group, two rounds of a Delphi process with an international group of subject matter experts and two panels, meeting via Zoom, which included editors of complementary and integrative medicine journals. BiFi REGs comprises a 15-item Intervention checklist. Modifications of two other CONSORT topic areas are also proposed to enhance their relevance to trials of biofield therapies. Included for each item are an explanation, and exemplars of reporting from peer-reviewed published reports of biofield therapy trials. When used in conjunction with all other items from CONSORT 2010, we anticipate that BiFi REGs will expedite the peer review process for biofield therapy trials, facilitate attempts at trial replication and help to inform decision-making in the clinical practice of biofield therapies.

Highlights Guidelines have been created to improve the reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies, e.g. External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki, and Therapeutic Touch. Appropriate use of these guidelines is likely to strengthen the evidence base for biofield therapies as well as increase their usage as stand-alone practices and as complementary therapies within mainstream healthcare.

The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary care (CRISP) provides a new research reporting guideline to meet the needs of the producers and users of primary care (PC) research. Developed through an iterative program of research, including investigators, practicing clinicians, patients, community representatives, and educators, the CRISP Checklist guides PC researchers across the spectrum of research methods, study designs, and topics. This pilot test included a variety of team members using the CRISP Checklist for writing, revising, and reviewing PC research reports. All or most of the 15 participants reported that the checklist was easy to use, improved research reports, and should be recommended by PC research journals. The checklist is adaptable to different study types; not all items apply to all reports. The CRISP Checklist can help meet the needs of PC research when used in parallel with existing guidelines that focus on specific methods and limited topics.