Methods Reporting Quality and its Association with Methods Section Length: A Cross-sectional Assessment of STROBE and CONSORT Reporting Adherence in Top-cited Dermatology Journals.

Background: Adequate methods reporting in observational and trial literature is critical to interpretation and implementation. Objective: Evaluate methodology reporting adherence in the dermatology literature and compare this to internal medicine (IM) literature. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional review of randomly-selected dermatology and IM manuscripts published between 2014-2018. Observational and trial articles were retrieved from PubMed. The primary outcome was percent adherence to STROBE or CONSORT methods-related checklist items (methods reporting score, MRS). Secondary outcomes included the relationship between methods section length (MSL) and MRS. We additionally compared these with IM literature. MRS and MSL were compared by overall article length, checklist type, field, journal, study topic, and funding source. Comparisons were assessed using univariable and multivariable linear regression. Results: We identified 389 articles (172 dermatology and 217 IM). Within dermatology, we identified 83 clinical trials and 89 observational studies. Mean MRS was 61.4 percent. A one word increase in MSL corresponded to a 0.02 percent increase MRS (ß=0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.03). Mean MRS was 12.8 percent lower in the dermatology literature compared with IM (ß=-12.8%, -15.6-[-9.91]). Mean dermatology MSL was 345 words shorter (ß=-345, -413-[-277]). Studies from JAMA Dermatology, Journal of Investigative Dermatology, and British Journal of Dermatology, with government funding, and having supplemental methods had higher mean MRS's. Conclusion: Methods reporting quality was low in dermatology. A weak relationship between MRS and MSL was observed. These data support enhancing researcher emphasis on methods reporting, editorial staff, and peer reviewers that more strictly enforce checklist reporting.