Are reporting guidelines used in infectious diseases publications? An analysis of more than 1,000 articles

Abstract

Abstract Objective: To assess whether 16 reporting guidelines of Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) were used in infectious diseases research publications. Design: This cross-sectional, audit-type study assessed articles published in five infectious diseases journals in 2019. Methods: All articles were manually reviewed to assess if a reporting guideline was advisable and searched for the names and acronyms of 16 reporting guidelines. An “advisable use rate” was calculated. Results: We reviewed 1,251 manuscripts across five infectious diseases journals. Guideline use was advisable for 973 (75%) articles. Reporting guidelines were used in 85 articles, 6.1% of total articles, and 8% (95% CI 6%–9%) of articles for which guidelines were advised. The advisable use rate ranged from 0.06 to 0.17 for any guideline, 0–0.08 for CONSORT, 0.53–1 for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and 0–0.66 for Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) : The TRIPOD statement. No trends were observed across the five journals. Conclusions: The use of EQUATOR-related reporting guidelines is infrequent, despite journals and publishers promoting their usage. Whether this finding is attributable to knowledge, acceptance, or perceived usefulness of the guidelines still needs to be clarified.