RESUMO
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. AIM: 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. DESIGN & SETTING: 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. METHOD: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
RESUMO
Background Context: Laminectomy is a common vertebral decompression procedure that has multiple potential adverse events which are not always reported in SRs. Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) on laminectomy. Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis. Methods: Eligible studies were SRs that evaluated laminectomy for any indication. MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched in May 2022 to locate studies for inclusion. Screening and data extraction on harms reporting and study characteristics were performed in duplicate. AMSTAR-2 was used to evaluate the methodological quality of included SRs. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated for SR pairs. Results: We included 26 SRs comprising 426 primary studies. Most SRs studied laminectomy for spinal stenosis, declared harms as a secondary outcome, and lacked or did not mention funding. Two SRs completely omitted harms, 9 had between 0% and 50.0% completion of harms items, and 15 had more than 50.1% completion. AMSTAR-2 graded 25 SRs (25/26, 96.2%) as 'critically low' and 1 SR (1/26, 3.8%) as 'low'. We found a statistically significant association between completeness of harms reporting and outcome specification. No other associations were statistically significant. Three SR pairs had CCAs >50% and were compared for unique and shared harms. Conclusions: The completeness of harms reporting in SRs was inadequate. Because SRs often serve as tools for constructing clinical practice guidelines and clinical decision making, improvements must be made to enhance and refine harms reporting.
