Co-design workshops to develop evidence synthesis summary formats for use by clinical guideline development groups.

BACKGROUND: Evidence synthesis is used by decision-makers in various ways, such as developing evidence-based recommendations for clinical guidelines. Clinical guideline development groups (GDGs) typically discuss evidence synthesis findings in a multidisciplinary group, including patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, etc. A recent mixed methods systematic review (MMSR) identified no gold standard format for optimally presenting evidence synthesis findings to these groups. However, it provided 94 recommendations to help produce more effective summary formats for general evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews). To refine the MMSR recommendations to create more actionable guidance for summary producers, we aimed to explore these 94 recommendations with participants involved in evidence synthesis and guideline development. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using online focus group workshops in February and March 2023. These groups used a participatory co-design approach with interactive voting activities to identify preferences for a summary format's essential content and style. We created a topic guide focused on recommendations from the MMSR with mixed methods support, ≥ 3 supporting studies, and those prioritized by an expert advisory group via a pragmatic prioritization exercise using the MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, and Will not haves). Eligible participants must be/have been involved in GDGs and/or evidence synthesis. Groups were recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers analyzed transcripts using directed content analysis with 94 pre-defined codes from the MMSR. RESULTS: Thirty individuals participated in six focus groups. We coded 79 of the 94 pre-defined codes. Participants suggested a "less is more" structured approach that minimizes methodological steps and statistical data, promoting accessibility to all audiences by judicious use of links to further information in the full report. They emphasized concise, consistently presented formats that highlight key messages, flag readers to indicators of trust in the producers (i.e., logos, websites, and conflict of interest statements), and highlight the certainty of evidence (without extenuating details). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified guidance based on the preferences of guideline developers and evidence synthesis producers about the format of evidence synthesis summaries to support decision-making. The next steps involve developing and user-testing prototype formats through one-on-one semi-structured interviews to optimize evidence synthesis summaries and support decision-making.

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review.

Background: Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods. Results: The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies. Conclusions: Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

An international modified Delphi process supported updating the web-based "right review" tool.

OBJECTIVES: The proliferation of evidence synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the ''right'' method. This study aimed to update the Right Review tool (a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods) and establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies (https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A 2-round modified international electronic modified Delphi was conducted (2022) with researchers, health-care providers, patients, and policy makers. Panel members rated the importance/clarity of the Right Review tool's guiding questions, evidence synthesis type definitions and tool output. High agreement was defined as at least 70% agreement. Any items not reaching high agreement after round 2 were discussed by the international Project Steering Group. RESULTS: Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1, with 12 completing round 2. Of the 46 items presented in round 1, 21 reached high agreement. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with 8 reaching high agreement. The Project Steering Group discussed items not reaching high agreement, including 8 guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative synthesis), and 2 output items. Three items were removed entirely and the remaining 16 revised and edited and/or combined with existing items. The final tool comprises 42 items; 9 guiding questions, 25 evidence synthesis definitions and approaches, and 8 tool outputs. CONCLUSION: The freely accessible Right Review tool supports choosing an appropriate review method. The design and clarity of this tool was enhanced by harnessing the Delphi technique to shape ongoing development. The updated tool is expected to be available in Quarter 1, 2025.

Motivations for investigating health inequities in observational epidemiology: a content analysis of 320 studies.

OBJECTIVES: To enhance equity in clinical and epidemiological research, it is crucial to understand researcher motivations for conducting equity-relevant studies. Therefore, we evaluated author motivations in a randomly selected sample of equity-relevant observational studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE for studies from 2020 to 2022, resulting in 16,828 references. We randomly selected 320 studies purposefully sampled across income setting (high vs low-middle-income), COVID-19 topic (vs non-COVID-19), and focus on populations experiencing inequities. Of those, 206 explicitly mentioned motivations which we analyzed thematically. We used discourse analysis to investigate the reasons behind emerging motivations. RESULTS: We identified the following motivations: (1) examining health disparities, (2) tackling social determinants to improve access, and (3) addressing knowledge gaps in health equity. Discourse analysis showed motivations stem from commitments to social justice and recognizing the importance of highlighting it in research. Other discourses included aspiring to improve health-care efficiency, wanting to understand cause-effect relationships, and seeking to contribute to an equitable evidence base. CONCLUSION: Understanding researchers' motivations for assessing health equity can aid in developing guidance that tailors to their needs. We will consider these motivations in developing and sharing equity guidance to better meet researchers' needs.

Reporting of Observational Studies Explicitly Aiming to Emulate Randomized Trials: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Observational (nonexperimental) studies that aim to emulate a randomized trial (ie, the target trial) are increasingly informing medical and policy decision-making, but it is unclear how these studies are reported in the literature. Consistent reporting is essential for quality appraisal, evidence synthesis, and translation of evidence to policy and practice. Objective: To assess the reporting of observational studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial. Evidence Review: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science for observational studies published between March 2012 and October 2022 that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial of a health or medical intervention. Two reviewers double-screened and -extracted data on study characteristics, key predefined components of the target trial protocol and its emulation (eligibility criteria, treatment strategies, treatment assignment, outcome[s], follow-up, causal contrast[s], and analysis plan), and other items related to the target trial emulation. Findings: A total of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial were included. These studies included 26 subfields of medicine, and 168 (84%) were published from January 2020 to October 2022. The aim to emulate a target trial was explicit in 70 study titles (35%). Forty-three studies (22%) reported use of a published reporting guideline (eg, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). Eighty-five studies (43%) did not describe all key items of how the target trial was emulated and 113 (57%) did not describe the protocol of the target trial and its emulation. Conclusion and Relevance: In this systematic review of 200 studies that explicitly aimed to emulate a target trial, reporting of how the target trial was emulated was inconsistent. A reporting guideline for studies explicitly aiming to emulate a target trial may improve the reporting of the target trial protocols and other aspects of these emulation attempts.

Development of the TrAnsparent ReportinG of observational studies Emulating a Target trial (TARGET) guideline.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are increasingly used to inform health decision-making when randomised trials are not feasible, ethical or timely. The target trial approach provides a framework to help minimise common biases in observational studies that aim to estimate the causal effect of interventions. Incomplete reporting of studies using the target trial framework limits the ability for clinicians, researchers, patients and other decision-makers to appraise, synthesise and interpret findings to inform clinical and public health practice and policy. This paper describes the methods that we will use to develop the TrAnsparent ReportinG of observational studies Emulating a Target trial (TARGET) reporting guideline. METHODS/DESIGN: The TARGET reporting guideline will be developed in five stages following recommended guidance. The first stage will identify target trial reporting practices by systematically reviewing published studies that explicitly emulated a target trial. The second stage will identify and refine items to be considered for inclusion in the TARGET guideline by consulting content experts using sequential online surveys. The third stage will prioritise and consolidate key items to be included in the TARGET guideline at an in-person consensus meeting of TARGET investigators. The fourth stage will produce and pilot-test both the TARGET guideline and explanation and elaboration document with relevant stakeholders. The fifth stage will disseminate the TARGET guideline and resources via journals, conferences and courses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the survey has been attained (HC220536). The TARGET guideline will be disseminated widely in partnership with stakeholders to maximise adoption and improve reporting of these studies.

A scoping review establishes need for consensus guidance on reporting health equity in observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the support from the available guidance on reporting of health equity in research for our candidate items and to identify additional items for the Strengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Equity extension. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review by searching Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, LILACS, and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information up to January 2022. We also searched reference lists and gray literature for additional resources. We included guidance and assessments (hereafter termed "resources") related to conduct and/or reporting for any type of health research with or about people experiencing health inequity. RESULTS: We included 34 resources, which supported one or more candidate items or contributed to new items about health equity reporting in observational research. Each candidate item was supported by a median of six (range: 1-15) resources. In addition, 12 resources suggested 13 new items, such as "report the background of investigators". CONCLUSION: Existing resources for reporting health equity in observational studies aligned with our interim checklist of candidate items. We also identified additional items that will be considered in the development of a consensus-based and evidence-based guideline for reporting health equity in observational studies.

Reporting guidelines used varying methodology to develop recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We investigated the developing methods of reporting guidelines in the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network's database. METHODS: In October 2018, we screened all records and excluded those not describing reporting guidelines from further investigation. Twelve researchers performed duplicate data extraction on bibliometrics, scope, development methods, presentation, and dissemination of all publications. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the findings. RESULTS: Of the 405 screened records, 262 described a reporting guidelines development. The number of reporting guidelines increased over the past 3 decades, from 5 in the 1990s and 63 in the 2000s to 157 in the 2010s. Development groups included 2-151 people. Literature appraisal was performed during the development of 56% of the reporting guidelines; 33% used surveys to gather external opinion on items to report; and 42% piloted or sought external feedback on their recommendations. Examples of good reporting for all reporting items were presented in 30% of the reporting guidelines. Eighteen percent of the reviewed publications included some level of spin. CONCLUSION: Reporting guidelines have been developed with varying methodology. Reporting guideline developers should use existing guidance and take an evidence-based approach, rather than base their recommendations on expert opinion of limited groups of individuals.

Strong recommendations from low certainty evidence: a cross-sectional analysis of a suite of national guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines should be based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and generally include a rating of the quality of evidence and assign a strength to recommendations. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance warns against making strong recommendations when the certainty of the evidence is low or very low, but has identified five paradigmatic situations (e.g. life-threatening situations) where this may be justified. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to characterize the strength of recommendations and certainty of the evidence in Irish National Clinical Guidelines using the GRADE approach. METHODS: All National Clinical Guidelines from the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) website using the GRADE approach (fully or partially) were included. All recommendations and their corresponding certainty of the evidence, strength of recommendations and justifications were extracted. Authors classified instances of strong recommendations with low certainty evidence (referred to as discordant recommendations) into one of the five paradigmatic situations. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: From the 29 NCEC Clinical Guidelines available at the time of analysis, we identified 8 guidelines using GRADE with a total of 240 recommendations; 38 recommendations did not use the GRADE approach and were excluded. Half of the included guidelines focused on emergency situations. In the final dataset of 202 recommendations, 151 (74.7%) were classified as strong and 51 (25.3%) as conditional. Of the 151 strong recommendations, 55 (36.4%) were supported by high or moderate certainty evidence and 96 (63.6%) by low or very low certainty evidence and were considered discordant. Of these 96 discordant recommendations, 55 (73.7%) were consistent with one of the five paradigmatic situations. However, none were specifically described as such within the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of discordant recommendations identified in this analysis was higher than some previous international studies (range of all strong recommendations being discordant 30-50%), but similar to other guidelines focused on emergency situations. The majority of discordant recommendations could be mapped to one of the five situations, but no National Clinical Guideline explicitly referenced this. Guideline developers require further guidance to enable greater transparency in the reporting of the reasons for discordant recommendations.

The effectiveness and acceptability of evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development groups: a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical guideline development often involves a rigorous synthesis of evidence involving multidisciplinary stakeholders with different priorities and knowledge of evidence synthesis; this makes communicating findings complex. Summary formats are typically used to communicate the results of evidence syntheses; however, there is little consensus on which formats are most effective and acceptable for different stakeholders. METHODS: This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability (e.g. preferences and attitudes and preferences towards) of evidence synthesis summary formats for GDG members. We followed the PRISMA 2020 guideline and Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis for MMSRs. We searched six databases (inception to April 20, 2021) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), RCTs with a qualitative component, and qualitative studies. Screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed in duplicate. Qualitative findings were synthesised using meta-aggregation, and quantitative findings are described narratively. RESULTS: We identified 17,240 citations and screened 54 full-text articles, resulting in 22 eligible articles (20 unique studies): 4 articles reported the results of 5 RCTs, one of which also had a qualitative component. The other 18 articles discussed the results of 16 qualitative studies. Therefore, we had 5 trials and 17 qualitative studies to extract data from. Studies were geographically heterogeneous and included a variety of stakeholders and summary formats. All 5 RCTs assessed knowledge or understanding with 3 reporting improvement with newer formats. The qualitative analysis identified 6 categories of recommendations: 'presenting information', 'tailoring information' for end users, 'trust in producers and summary', 'knowledge required' to understand findings, 'quality of evidence', and properly 'contextualising information'. Across these categories, the synthesis resulted in 126 recommendations for practice. Nine recommendations were supported by both quantitative and qualitative evidence and 116 by only qualitative. A majority focused on how to present information (n = 64) and tailor content for different end users (n = 24). CONCLUSIONS: This MMSR provides guidance on how to improve evidence summary structure and layout. This can be used by synthesis producers to better communicate to GDGs. Study findings will inform the co-creation of evidence summary format prototypes based on GDG member's needs. Trial registration The protocol for this project was previously published, and the project was preregistered on Open Science Framework (Clyne and Sharp, Evidence synthesis and translation of findings for national clinical guideline development: addressing the needs and preferences of guideline development groups, 2021; Sharp and Clyne, Evidence synthesis summary formats for decision-makers and Clinical Guideline Development Groups: A mixed-methods systematic review protocol, 2021).

Irish Media Coverage of COVID-19 Evidence-Based Research Reports From One National Agency.

BACKGROUND: How research findings are presented through domestic news can influence behaviour and risk perceptions, particularly during emergencies such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Monitoring media communications to track misinformation and find information gaps is an important component of emergency risk communication. Therefore, this study investigated the traditional media coverage of nine selected COVID-19 evidence-based research reports and associated press releases (PRs) published during the initial phases of the pandemic (April to July 2020) by one national agency. METHODS: NVivo was used for summative content analysis. 'Key messages' from each research report were proposed and 488 broadcast, print, and online media sources were coded at the phrase level. Manifest content was coded and counted to locate patterns in the data (what and how many) while latent content was analysed to further investigate these patterns (why and how). This included the coding of the presence of political and public health actors in coverage. RESULTS: Coverage largely did not misrepresent the results of the reports, however, selective reporting and the variability in the use of quotes from governmental and public health stakeholders changed and contextualised results in different manners than perhaps originally intended in the PR. Reports received varying levels of media attention. Coverage focused on more 'human-interest' stories (eg, spread of COVID-19 by children and excess mortality) as opposed to more technical reports (eg, focusing on viral load, antibodies, testing, etc). CONCLUSION: Our findings provide a case-study of European media coverage of evidence reports produced by a national agency. Results highlighted several strengths and weaknesses of current communication efforts.

Improving Social Justice in COVID-19 Health Research: Interim Guidelines for Reporting Health Equity in Observational Studies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the global imperative to address health inequities. Observational studies are a valuable source of evidence for real-world effects and impacts of implementing COVID-19 policies on the redistribution of inequities. We assembled a diverse global multi-disciplinary team to develop interim guidance for improving transparency in reporting health equity in COVID-19 observational studies. We identified 14 areas in the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklist that need additional detail to encourage transparent reporting of health equity. We searched for examples of COVID-19 observational studies that analysed and reported health equity analysis across one or more social determinants of health. We engaged with Indigenous stakeholders and others groups experiencing health inequities to co-produce this guidance and to bring an intersectional lens. Taking health equity and social determinants of health into account contributes to the clinical and epidemiological understanding of the disease, identifying specific needs and supporting decision-making processes. Stakeholders are encouraged to consider using this guidance on observational research to help provide evidence to close the inequitable gaps in health outcomes.

Evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development group members: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol.

Introduction: Evidence syntheses, often in the form of systematic reviews, are essential for clinical guideline development and informing changes to health policies. However, clinical guideline development groups (CGDG) are multidisciplinary, and participants such as policymakers, healthcare professionals and patient representatives can face obstacles when trying to understand and use evidence synthesis findings. Summary formats to communicate the results of evidence syntheses have become increasingly common, but it is currently unclear which format is most effective for different stakeholders. This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) evaluates the effectiveness and acceptability of different evidence synthesis summary formats for CGDG members. Methods: This protocol follows guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute on MMSRs and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA)-P guideline. A comprehensive search of six databases will be performed with no language restrictions. Primary outcomes are those relating to the effectiveness and preferences for and attitudes towards the different summary formats. We will include qualitative research and randomised controlled trials. Two reviewers will perform title, abstract, and full-text screening. Independent double-extraction of study characteristics and critical appraisal items will be undertaken using a standardised form. We will use a convergent segregated approach to analyse quantitative and qualitative data separately; results will then be integrated. Discussion: The results of this systematic review will provide an overview of the effectiveness and acceptability of different summary formats for evidence synthesis findings. These findings can be helpful for those in or communicating to guideline development groups. The results can also inform the development and pilot-testing of summary formats for evidence summaries.

Online survey about the STROBE statement highlighted diverging views about its content, purpose, and value.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The endorsement rates of The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement are low and little is known about authors' opinions about this reporting guideline. We conducted an online survey with observational study authors on attitude toward and experiences with the STROBE Statement with the aim of understanding how to effectively implement STROBE. METHODS: A thematic analysis on the responses to an open-ended question was conducted using inductive coding. Two coders classified responses independently into themes using a codebook. The inter-rater agreement ranged from 87.7 to 99.9%. RESULTS: 15% (n = 150) of survey participants (n = 1,015) shared perceptions and insights on STROBE. We established four themes: 1) perceptions of the checklist, 2) academic confidence, 3) use in education and training, and 4) journal endorsement and use in peer review. Views were diverse and revealed multiple misunderstandings about the checklist's purpose and content, and lack of incentives for its use. CONCLUSIONS: Better communication efforts are needed when disseminating STROBE and other reporting guidelines. These should focus on content, education for early career researchers, and encouragement of critical self-reflection on one's own work. In addition, results emphasized the need for better incentive and enforcement mechanisms.

Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software: a crossover randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the intention of using a Writing Aid software, which integrates four research reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-nutritional epidemiology) and their Elaboration & Explanation (E&E) documents during the write-up of research in Microsoft Word compared with current practices. DESIGN: Two-arms crossover randomised controlled trial with no blinding and no washout period. SETTING: Face-to-face or online sessions. PARTICIPANTS: 54 (28 in arm 1 and 26 in arm 2) doctoral and postdoctoral researchers. INTERVENTIONS: Reporting guidelines and their E&E document were randomly administered as Writing Aid or as Word documents in a single 30 min to 1 hour session, with a short break before crossing over to the other study intervention. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Using the Technology Acceptance Model, we assessed the primary outcome: the difference in the mean of intention of use; and secondary outcomes: the difference in mean perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. The three outcomes were measured using questions with a 7-point Likert-scale. Secondary analysis using structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied to explore the relationships between the outcomes. RESULTS: No significant difference in reported intention of use (mean difference and 95% CI 0.25 (-0.05 to 0.55), p=0.10), and perceived usefulness (mean difference and 95% CI 0.19 (-0.04 to 0.41), p=0.10). The Writing Aid performed significantly better than the word document on researchers' perceived ease of use (mean difference and 95% CI 0.59 (0.29 to 0.89), p<0.001). In the SEM analysis, participants' intention of using the tools was indirectly affected by perceived ease of use (beta 0.53 p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Despite no significant difference in the intention of use between the tools, administering reporting guidelines as Writing Aid is perceived as easier to use, offering a possibility to further explore its applicability to enhance reporting adherence.

Using the STROBE statement: survey findings emphasized the role of journals in enforcing reporting guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to identify factors affecting the use of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement, specifically authors' attitudes toward and experiences with it. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey was distributed to authors of observational studies recruited via social media, personal network snowballing, and mass mailings using targeted search strategies. Data on demographics, awareness, motivators, and usage were collected in conjunction with a modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) scale on which confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. RESULTS: One thousand fifteen participants completed the survey. Of these, 185 (18.2%) indicated they had never heard of STROBE nor used it previously, 195 (19.2%) had heard of it but never used it, and 635 (62.6%) had used it. Journals promoting STROBE were both key motivators and awareness mechanisms; peers and educational workshops were also important influencing factors to a lesser degree. The internal consistency of the modified UTAUT scale was strong (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94). CFA supported a four-factor model with 23 questions. CONCLUSION: The endorsement of STROBE by journals is key to authors' awareness and use of the guideline. We tested and validated our scale which can guide future research on reporting guidelines.

A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions.

OBJECTIVES: The STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement provides guidance on reporting observational studies. Many extensions have been created for specialized methods or fields. We determined endorsement prevalence and typology by journals in extension-related fields. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A published protocol defined search strategies to identify journals publishing observational studies (2007-2017) across seven fields relating to STROBE extensions. We extracted text regarding STROBE, seven STROBE extensions, reporting guidelines Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and transparent reporting documents/groups: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) networks. Relationships between endorsing STROBE, endorsing other guidelines, and journal impact factor were tested using chi square and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Of 257 unique journals, 12 (5%) required STROBE on submission, 22 (9%) suggested use, 12 (5%) recommended a "relevant guideline," 72 (28%) mentioned it indirectly (via editorial policies or International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations), and 139 (54%) did not mention STROBE. The relevant extension was required by 2 (<1%) journals; 4 (1%) suggested use. STROBE endorsement was not associated with journal impact indices but was with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses endorsements. CONCLUSION: Reporting guideline endorsement rates are low; information is vague and scattered. Unambiguous language is needed to improve adherence to reporting guidelines and increase the quality of reporting.