The standardized reports of simulated acupuncture control are conductive to understanding and replicating the control method for researchers and readers. At present, the reporting quality of the simulated control in the clinical research of acupuncture is low and there is not a guideline, specification or standard specifically for the report of simulated acupuncture control. In this article, we compared in-depth the checklists between STRICTA (standards for reporting interventions in clinical trials of acupuncture) and TIDieR-Placebo (a guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls), and assessed their applicability in acupuncture clinical research. The checklist of STRICTA is a particular standard for reporting acupuncture intervention measures, including the items of acupuncture control, especially the reporting of the details in acupuncture control; while, the checklist of TIDieR-Placebo is for the comprehensive reporting of placebo or sham control, covering a wider range of content. It specifies the overall reporting of the placebo control setting, intervention delivery and blindness assessment. Although both of the checklists provide a certain reference for reporting simulated acupuncture, they are not applicable for adequately reporting the simulated acupuncture control. Therefore, it is urgent to develop a specific guideline for reporting simulated acupuncture control so as to improve the reporting quality.
规范的模拟针刺对照报告有助于研究者、读者对该对照方式的理解与重复。目前部分针刺临床研究中模拟针刺对照报告质量较差，且尚无专门针对模拟针刺对照报告的指南、规范或标准。本文对模拟针刺对照相关报告规范——针刺临床试验干预措施报告标准(STRICTA)及安慰剂和假对照报告指南与清单(TIDieR-Placebo)进行深入地比较分析，并评价其在针刺临床研究中的适用性。STRICTA清单是专门针对针刺干预措施报告的规范，同时也包括对针刺对照内容的规范，侧重于针刺细节的报告；TIDieR-Placebo清单则是针对安慰剂对照或假干预普适性的报告标准，涵盖内容更广，从安慰对照设置、实施与盲法评价方面进行整体报告内容的规定。两者均对模拟针刺对照报告有一定的借鉴意义，但又不完全适用。故亟需制订专门针对模拟针刺对照报告的指南、标准或规范，以提高其报告质量。.

A journal\'s impact factor (IF) and total citations are often used as indicators of its publication quality. Furthermore, journals that require authors to abide by reporting guidelines or conduct trial registration generally have a higher quality of reporting. In this study, we sought to explore the potential associations between the enforcement of reporting guidelines or trial registration and a surgical journal\'s IF or total citations in order to find new approaches and ideas to improve journal publication quality.
We examined surgical journals from the 2018 Journal Citation Report\'s Expanded Scientific Citation Index to quantify the use of reporting guidelines or study registration. We reviewed the \"instructions for authors\" from each journal and used multivariable linear regression analysis to determine which guidelines were associated with the journal IF and total citations. The dependent variable was the logarithm base 10 of the IF in 2018 or the logarithm base 10 of total citations in 2018 (the results were presented as geometric means, specifically the ratio of the \"endorsed group\" results to \"not endorsed group\" results). The independent variable was one of the requirements (endorsed and not endorsed). Models adjust for the publication region, language, start year, publisher and journal size (only used to adjust total citations).
We included 188 surgical journals in our study. The results of multivariable linear regression analysis showed that journal IF was associated (P < 0.01) with the following requirements: randomized controlled trial (RCT) registration (geometric means ratio (GR) = 1.422, 95% CI [1.197-1.694]), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (1.318, [1.104-1.578]), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (1.390, [1.148-1.683]), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement (1.556, [1.262-1.919]), Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement (1.585, [1.216-2.070]), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement (2.113, [1.422-3.133]). We found associations between the endorsement of RCT registration (GR = 1.652, 95% CI [1.268-2.153]), CONSORT (1.570, [1.199-2.061]), PRISMA (1.698, [1.271-2.270]), STROBE (2.023, [1.476-2.773]), STARD (2.173, [1.452-3.243]), and MOOSE statements (2.249, [1.219-4.150]) and the number of total citations.
The presence of reporting guidelines and trial registration was associated with higher IF or more total citations in surgical journals. If more surgical journals incorporate these policies into their submission requirements, this may improve publication quality, thus increasing their IF and total citations.

UNASSIGNED: The reporting of surgical techniques is of mixed quality, with most at a very minimal level. Reporting guidelines that could be applied to guide surgical technique reporting vary in methodology for development, discipline coverage, dimension coverage and detail requested. However, a scoping review that could indicate the gaps and efforts needed in surgical technique reporting guidelines is lacking and warranted. This study aims to design a methodological rigour protocol to guide the development of a scoping review of surgical technique reporting guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: This protocol is designed following the 2020 manual proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. To further ensure the soundness of the protocol, we also included multidisciplinary professionals (including methodologists, clinicians, and journal editors) to refine the protocol.
UNASSIGNED: Seven key steps for developing the scoping review are identified and presented in detail, including (I) identifying the research questions; (II) inclusion criteria; (III) search strategy; (IV) source of evidence selection; (V) data extraction; (VI) analysis of the evidence; and (VII) presentation of the results. Guided by this protocol, the subsequent scoping review will inform us the overview of surgical technique reporting guidelines and precisely guide our direction and next steps in improving surgical technique reporting guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: This protocol is not registered as the PROSPERO database only accepts registration of systematic review protocols while does not accept registration of scoping review protocols.