Justin E Caron 1 , Jordon K March 1 , Michael B Cohen 1 , Robert L Schmidt 1 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of reporting guideline endorsement in pathology journals and to estimate the impact of guideline endorsement. METHODS: We compared the quality of reporting in two sets of studies: (1) studies published in journals that explicitly mentioned a guideline vs studies published in journals that did not and (2) studies that cited a guideline vs studies that did not. The quality of reporting in prognostic biomarker studies was assessed using the REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) guideline. RESULTS: We found that six (10%) of the 59 leading pathology journals explicitly mention reporting guidelines in the instructions to authors. Only one journal required authors to submit a checklist. There was significant variation in the rate at which various REMARK items were reported (P < .001). Journal endorsement was associated with more complete reporting (P = .04). Studies that cited REMARK had greater adherence to the REMARK reporting guidelines than studies that did not (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of guideline endorsement is relatively low in pathology journals, but guideline endorsement may improve the quality of reporting. © American Society for Clinical Pathology, 2017. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of reporting guideline endorsement in pathology journals and to estimate the impact of guideline endorsement. METHODS: We compared the quality of reporting in two sets of studies: (1) studies published in journals that explicitly mentioned a guideline vs studies published in journals that did not and (2) studies that cited a guideline vs studies that did not. The quality of reporting in prognostic biomarker studies was assessed using the REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) guideline. RESULTS: We found that six (10%) of the 59 leading pathology journals explicitly mention reporting guidelines in the instructions to authors. Only one journal required authors to submit a checklist. There was significant variation in the rate at which various REMARK items were reported (P < .001). Journal endorsement was associated with more complete reporting (P = .04). Studies that cited REMARK had greater adherence to the REMARK reporting guidelines than studies that did not (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of guideline endorsement is relatively low in pathology journals, but guideline endorsement may improve the quality of reporting. © American Society for Clinical Pathology, 2017. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
Entities: Chemical
Keywords:
Biomarkers; Guideline; Prognosis; Quality; REMARK; Reporting
Mesh： See more »
Substances： See more »
Year: 2017
PMID： 28967948 DOI： 10.1093/ajcp/aqx080
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Clin Pathol ISSN： 0002-9173 Impact factor: 2.493