This metaresearch study aimed to evaluate the completeness of reporting of prediction model studies in patients with spinal pain or osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of adherence to the transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement. We searched for prognostic and diagnostic prediction models in patients with spinal pain or OA in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Using a standardized assessment form, we assessed the adherence to the TRIPOD of the included studies. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction phases. We included 66 studies. Approximately 35% of the studies declared to have used the TRIPOD. The median adherence to the TRIPOD was 59% overall (interquartile range (IQR): 21.8), with the items of the methods and results sections having the worst reporting. Studies on neck pain had better adherence to the TRIPOD than studies on back pain and OA (medians of 76.5%, 59%, and 53%, respectively). External validation studies had the highest total adherence (median: 79.5%, IQR: 12.8) of all the study types. The median overall adherence was 4 points higher in studies that declared TRIPOD use than those that did not. Finally, we did not observe any improvement in adherence over the years. The adherence to the TRIPOD of prediction models in the spinal and OA fields is low, with the methods and results sections being the most poorly reported. Future studies on prediction models in spinal pain and OA should follow the TRIPOD to improve their reporting completeness. PERSPECTIVE: This article provides data about adherence to the TRIPOD statement in 66 prediction model studies for spinal pain or OA. The adherence to the TRIPOD statement was found to be low (median adherence of 59%). This inadequate reporting may negatively impact the effective use of the models in clinical practice.

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: Despite the improvements in the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trial (SPIRIT) guidelines, many items remain poorly reported. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of using SPIRIT-tailored templates for trial protocols to improve the completeness of reporting of the protocols that master\'s students write as part of their master\'s theses.
METHODS: Before and after experimental study performed at the University Master\'s Degree in Orthopaedic Manual Physiotherapy of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain). While students in the post-intervention period were instructed to use a trial protocol template that was tailored to SPIRIT, students in the pre-intervention period did not use the template.
METHODS: Difference between the pre- and post-intervention periods in the mean number of adequately reported items (0-10 scale). The outcomes were evaluated independently and in duplicate by two blinded assessors. Students and their supervisors were not aware that they were part of a research project. For the statistical analysis, we used a generalized linear regression model (dependent variable: number of adequately reported items in the protocol; independent variables: intervention period, call, language).
RESULTS: Thirty-four trial protocols were included (17, pre-intervention; 17, post-intervention). Protocols produced during the post-intervention period (mean: 8.24; SD: 1.52) were more completely reported than those produced during the pre-intervention period (mean: 6.35; SD: 1.80); adjusted difference: 1.79 (95% CI: 0.58 to 3.00).
CONCLUSIONS: SPIRIT-based templates could be used to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols.

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.

UNASSIGNED: To develop text classification models for determining whether the checklist items in the CONSORT reporting guidelines are reported in randomized controlled trial publications.
UNASSIGNED: Using a corpus annotated at the sentence level with 37 fine-grained CONSORT items, we trained several sentence classification models (PubMedBERT fine-tuning, BioGPT fine-tuning, and in-context learning with GPT-4) and compared their performance. To address the problem of small training dataset, we used several data augmentation methods (EDA, UMLS-EDA, text generation and rephrasing with GPT-4) and assessed their impact on the fine-tuned PubMedBERT model. We also fine-tuned PubMedBERT models limited to checklist items associated with specific sections (e.g., Methods) to evaluate whether such models could improve performance compared to the single full model. We performed 5-fold cross-validation and report precision, recall, F1 score, and area under curve (AUC).
UNASSIGNED: Fine-tuned PubMedBERT model that takes as input the sentence and the surrounding sentence representations and uses section headers yielded the best overall performance (0.71 micro-F1, 0.64 macro-F1). Data augmentation had limited positive effect, UMLS-EDA yielding slightly better results than data augmentation using GPT-4. BioGPT fine-tuning and GPT-4 in-context learning exhibited suboptimal results. Methods-specific model yielded higher performance for methodology items, other section-specific models did not have significant impact.
UNASSIGNED: Most CONSORT checklist items can be recognized reasonably well with the fine-tuned PubMedBERT model but there is room for improvement. Improved models can underpin the journal editorial workflows and CONSORT adherence checks and can help authors in improving the reporting quality and completeness of their manuscripts.

This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals.
This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the \"Instructions for Authors\" section, encompassing the journal\'s impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson\'s correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor.
Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson\'s correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036).
This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals.
Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the reproducibility of biomedical systematic review search strategies.
METHODS: A cross-sectional reproducibility study was conducted on a random sample of 100 systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE in November 2021. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of systematic reviews for which all database searches can be reproduced, operationalized as fulfilling six key Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension (PRISMA-S) reporting guideline items and having all database searches reproduced within 10% of the number of original results. Key reporting guideline items included database name, multi-database searching, full search strategies, limits and restrictions, date(s) of searches, and total records.
RESULTS: The 100 systematic review articles contained 453 database searches. Only 22 (4.9%) database searches reported all six PRISMA-S items. Forty-seven (10.4%) database searches could be reproduced within 10% of the number of results from the original search; six searches differed by more than 1,000% between the originally reported number of results and the reproduction. Only one systematic review article provided the necessary search details to be fully reproducible.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review search reporting is poor. To correct this will require a multifaceted response from authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and database providers.

Systematic reviews (SRs) with complete reporting or rigorous methods can lead to less biased recommendations and decisions. A comprehensive analysis of the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of SRs in orthopedics is lacking. We evaluated 360 SRs, including 165 and 195 published in orthopedic journals in 2012 and 2022. According to the established reporting guidelines, we examined these SRs for key epidemiological characteristics, including focus areas, type of meta-analysis (MA), and reporting characteristics. Most SRs (71%) were therapy-related, with a significant proportion originating from authors in the USA, UK, and China. Pairwise MA was performed on half of the SRs. The proportion of protocol registrations improved by 2022 but remained low (33%). Despite a formal declaration of adherence to the reporting guidelines (68%), they were often not used and reported enough. Only 10% of the studies used full search strategies, including trial registries. Publication bias assessments, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses were not even planned. The risk of bias assessment improved in 2022; however, the certainty of the evidence remained largely unassessed (8%). The use and reporting of standard methods in orthopedic SRs have remained suboptimal. Thus, authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and readers should criticize the results more.

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators for using intervention reporting guidelines (CERT and TIDieR) from authors of randomized controlled trials in sports and exercise medicine journals. DESIGN: Mixed-methods cross-sectional online survey. METHODS: We recruited authors of randomized controlled trials published from June 2, 2018, to June 2, 2022, in the 10 leading sports and exercise medicine journals. We invited authors of eligible trials to complete an online survey that included multiple-choice and Likert-scale questions, as well as open-ended free-text questions on the barriers and facilitators to using intervention reporting guidelines. We used descriptive analysis to summarize the quantitative data and a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers and facilitators from the qualitative data. We conducted a subgroup analysis to explore differences in barriers and facilitators between early-mid career researchers and senior researchers. RESULTS: Eighty-four participants from 21 countries completed the survey (44 early-mid-career researchers, 40 senior researchers). We identified 8 themes relating to using intervention reporting guidelines. Themes classified as barriers related to publication constraints (word count limits), low awareness of intervention reporting guidelines, unclear benefits of the guidelines, and the increased burden imposed upon the researcher. Themes classified as facilitators related to journal requirements for guidelines use, the desire to accurately describe interventions, recommendations from other researchers, and reporting guideline use indicating \"quality\" of work. CONCLUSION: Barriers to using intervention reporting guidelines are largely modifiable and could be addressed by journals mandating their use, and educational initiatives. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2024;54(2):1-11. Epub 16 November 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12110.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the instructions for authors of rheumatology journals and analyze their endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Sixty rheumatology journals were selected by a research librarian and an investigator through the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. The instructions for authors\' subsection of each journal was assessed to determine endorsement of study design-specific reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. Descriptive statistics were calculated using R (version 4.2.1) and RStudio. Of the 58 journals analyzed, 34 (34/58; 59%) mentioned the EQUATOR Network: an online compendium of best practice reporting guidelines. The most commonly mentioned reporting guidelines were CONSORT with 44 journals (44/58; 75%), and PRISMA with 35 journals (35/58; 60%). The least mentioned guidelines were QUOROM with 56 journals not mentioning the guideline (56/58; 97%), and SRQR with 53 journals not mentioning the guideline (53/57, 93%). Clinical trial registration was required by 38 journals (38/58; 66%) and recommended by 8 journals (8/58; 14%). Our study found that endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration within rheumatology journals was suboptimal with great room for improvement. Endorsement of reporting guidelines have shown to not only mitigate bias, but also improve research methodologies. Therefore, we recommend rheumatology journals broadly expand their endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration to improve the quality of evidence they publish.