Reporting Policies in Neurosurgical Journals: A Meta-Science Study of the Current State and Case for Standardization

Nathan A Shlobin; Andrew Wang; Christopher S Graffeo; David Moher

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.10.143

Reporting Policies in Neurosurgical Journals: A Meta-Science Study of the Current State and Case for Standardization

World Neurosurg. 2022 Feb:158:11-23. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.10.143. Epub 2021 Oct 27.

Authors

Nathan A Shlobin¹, Andrew Wang², Christopher S Graffeo³, David Moher⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA; Division of Pediatric Neurosurgery, Lurie Children's Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Electronic address: nathan.shlobin@northwestern.edu.
² Department of Neurosurgery, University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA; Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science College of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA.
³ Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
⁴ Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

PMID: 34715370
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.10.143

Abstract

Background: Reporting quality within the neurosurgical literature is low, limiting the ability of journals to act as gatekeepers for evidence-based neurosurgical care. Journal policies during article submission aim to improve reporting quality. We conducted a meta-science study characterizing the reporting policies of neurosurgical journals and other related peer-reviewed publications.

Methods: Journals were retrieved in 7 searches using Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar. Characteristics, impact metrics, and submission policies were extracted.

Results: Of 486 results, 54 journals were included, including 27 neurosurgical and 27 related topical journals. Thirty-eight (70.4%) adopted authorship guidelines and 20 (37.0%) disclosure standards of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors. Twenty-six (48.1%) required data availability statement and 33 (61.1%) clinical trials registration. Twenty-one (38.9%) required and 11 (20.4%) recommended adherence to reporting guidelines. Twenty (37.0%) endorsed EQUATOR network guidelines. PRISMA was mentioned by 30 (55.6%) journals, CONSORT by 28 (51.9%), and STROBE by 18 (33.3%). Among neurosurgical journals, factors associated with a requirement or recommendation to follow reporting guidelines among neurosurgical journals included impact factor (P = 0.0013), Article Influence Score (P = 0.0236), SCImago h-index (P = 0.0152), SCImago journal rank (P = 0.002), and CiteScore (P = 0.0023), as well as recommendations pertaining to International Council of Medical Journal Editors authorship guidelines (P = 0.0085), ORCID (P = 0.014), clinical trials registration (P = 0.0369), or data availability statement (P = 0.0047). CONSORT, PRISMA, or STROBE delineations were significantly associated with the mention of another guideline (P < 0.01).

Conclusions: Neurosurgical journal submission policies are inconsistent. Frameworks to improve reporting quality are uncommonly used. Increasing rigor and standardization of reporting policies across journals publishers may improve quality.

Keywords: CONSORT; EQUATOR; Evidence-based medicine; PRISMA; Reporting guidelines; STARD; STROBE.

Publication types

Review

MeSH terms

Editorial Policies*
Guideline Adherence
Humans
Periodicals as Topic*
Policy
Reference Standards