Since the publication of the PRISMA guidance, there has been a marginal improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the field of vascular surgery. However, given the importance of these studies, this needs to be improved, especially as poor reporting may reflect poor methodology in conduct. Journals' instructions to authors should insist on submissions following the published guidance, and this intervention would likely improve both the methodology and quality of reporting of published systematic reviews.

AimsGuidance has been published on how best to report randomised controlled trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials - CONSORT) and systematic reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis - PRISMA). In 2011, we reported a low rate of enforcement by surgery journals for submitted manuscripts to conform to these guidelines. The aim of this follow-up study is to establish whether there has been any improvement.MethodsWe studied the 134 surgery journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report. The ‘Instructions to Authors’ were scrutinised for inclusion of the following guidance: CONSORT, PRISMA, clinical trial registration and systematic review registration.ResultsCompared to 2011, there has been an improvement in the endorsement of reporting guidance in journals' ‘Instructions to Authors’ in 2014, as follows: trial registration (42% vs 33%), CONSORT (42% vs 30%) and PRISMA (19% vs 10%, all p < 0.001). As in 2011, journals with a higher impact were more likely to adopt trial registration (p < 0.001), CONSORT (p < 0.001) and PRISMA (p = 0.002). Journals with editorial offices in the UK were more likely to endorse guidance compared to those outside the UK (p < 0.05). Only one journal mentioned registration for systematic reviews.ConclusionsSurgery journals are presently more likely to require submitted manuscripts to follow published reporting guidance compared to three years ago. However, overall concordance rates are still low, and an improvement is required to help enhance the quality of reporting – and ultimately the conduct – of randomised control trials and systematic reviews in surgery.

INTRODUCTIONGuidance has been published on how best to report randomised controlled trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials – CONSORT) and systematic reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses – PRISMA). The aim of this study was to establish to what extent surgical journals formally endorse CONSORT and PRISMA in the respective reporting of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews.METHODSOverall, 136 surgical journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports® were studied. Author guidelines were scrutinised for the following guidance: conflict of interests (COI), the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM), clinical trial registration, CONSORT and PRISMA.RESULTSThe frequency of guidance endorsement was found to be as follows: COI 82%, URM 62%, trial registration 32%, CONSORT 29% and PRISMA 10%. Journals with a higher impact were more likely to adopt trial registration, CONSORT and PRISMA. Journals with editorial offices in the UK were more likely to insist on disclosure of COI and to endorse CONSORT.CONCLUSIONSGuidelines produced to improve publication practice have not been implemented widely by surgical journals. This may contribute to an overall poorer quality of published research. Editors of surgical journals should uniformly endorse reporting guidance and update their instructions to authors to reflect this.

No abstract

No abstract