↓ Skip to main content

Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal “Instructions to Authors” in 2014

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
39 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal “Instructions to Authors” in 2014
Published in
Trials, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1408-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Larissa Shamseer, Sally Hopewell, Douglas G. Altman, David Moher, Kenneth F. Schulz

Abstract

The CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement provides a minimum standard set of items to be reported in published clinical trials; it has received widespread recognition within the biomedical publishing community. This research aims to provide an update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact medical journals. We performed a cross-sectional examination of the online "Instructions to Authors" of 168 high impact factor (2012) biomedical journals between July and December 2014. We assessed whether the text of the "Instructions to Authors" mentioned the CONSORT Statement and any CONSORT extensions, and we quantified the extent and nature of the journals' endorsements of these. These data were described by frequencies. We also determined whether journals mentioned trial registration and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE; other than in regards to trial registration) and whether either of these was associated with CONSORT endorsement (relative risk and 95 % confidence interval). We compared our findings to the two previous iterations of this survey (in 2003 and 2007). We also identified the publishers of the included journals. Sixty-three percent (106/168) of the included journals mentioned CONSORT in their "Instructions to Authors." Forty-four endorsers (42 %) explicitly stated that authors "must" use CONSORT to prepare their trial manuscript, 38 % required an accompanying completed CONSORT checklist as a condition of submission, and 39 % explicitly requested the inclusion of a flow diagram with the submission. CONSORT extensions were endorsed by very few journals. One hundred and thirty journals (77 %) mentioned ICMJE, and 106 (63 %) mentioned trial registration. The endorsement of CONSORT by high impact journals has increased over time; however, specific instructions on how CONSORT should be used by authors are inconsistent across journals and publishers. Publishers and journals should encourage authors to use CONSORT and set clear expectations for authors about compliance with CONSORT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Professor 4 5%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 19 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 20 26%