Abstract:Importance: Numerous studies have shown that adherence to reporting guidelines is suboptimal. Objective: To evaluate whether asking peer reviewers to check if specific reporting guideline items were adequately reported would improve adherence to reporting guidelines in published articles. Design, setting, and participants: Two parallel-group, superiority randomized trials were performed using manuscripts submitted to 7 biomedical journals (5 from the BMJ Publishing Group and 2 from the Public Library of Science) as the unit of randomization, with peer reviewers allocated to the intervention or control group. Interventions: The first trial (CONSORT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented randomized clinical trial (RCT) results and reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline, and the second trial (SPIRIT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented RCT protocols and reported following the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline. The CONSORT-PR trial included manuscripts that described RCT primary results (submitted July 2019 to July 2021). The SPIRIT-PR trial included manuscripts that contained RCT protocols (submitted June 2020 to May 2021). Manuscripts in both trials were randomized (1:1) to the intervention or control group; the control group received usual journal practice. In the intervention group of both trials, peer reviewers received an email from the journal that asked them to check whether the 10 most important and poorly reported CONSORT (for CONSORT-PR) or SPIRIT (for SPIRIT-PR) items were adequately reported in the manuscript. Peer reviewers and authors were not informed of the purpose of the study, and outcome assessors were blinded. Main outcomes and measures: The difference in the mean proportion of adequately reported 10 CONSORT or SPIRIT items between the intervention and control groups in published articles. Results: In the CONSORT-PR trial, 510 manuscripts were randomized. Of those, 243 were published (122 in the intervention group and 121 in the control group). A mean proportion of 69.3% (95% CI, 66.0%-72.7%) of the 10 CONSORT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 66.6% (95% CI, 62.5%-70.7%) in the control group (mean difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -2.6% to 8.0%). In the SPIRIT-PR trial, of the 244 randomized manuscripts, 178 were published (90 in the intervention group and 88 in the control group). A mean proportion of 46.1% (95% CI, 41.8%-50.4%) of the 10 SPIRIT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 45.6% (95% CI, 41.7% to 49.4%) in the control group (mean difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.2% to 6.3%). Conclusions and relevance: These 2 randomized trials found that it was not useful to implement the tested intervention to increase reporting completeness in published articles. Other interventions should be assessed and considered in the future. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT05820971 (CONSORT-PR) and NCT05820984 (SPIRIT-PR).

Improving Palliative Care Research Reporting: A Guide to Reporting Guidelines

Strategies Used in Improving and Assessing the Level of Reporting of Implementation Fidelity in Randomised Controlled Trials of Palliative Care Complex Interventions: A Systematic Review

The quality of reporting in clinical research: the CONSORT and STROBE initiatives

Reporting Quality of Social and Psychological Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Publications

What facilitators and barriers might researchers encounter when using reporting guidelines? Part 1: A thematic synthesis

Reminding Peer Reviewers of Reporting Guideline Items to Improve Completeness in Published Articles: Primary Results of 2 Randomized Trials

Using RIGHT (reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) to Evaluate the Reporting Quality of WHO Guidelines

ACCORD guideline for reporting consensus-based methods in biomedical research and clinical practice: a study protocol

A scoping review of global patterns in reporting race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion in palliative care randomized controlled trials: Recommendations for transparency

An update to SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines to enhance transparency in randomized trials

Strengthening tRansparent reporting of reseArch on uNfinished nursing CARE: The RANCARE guideline

Quality of reporting web-based and non-web-based survey studies: What authors, reviewers and consumers should consider

A Cross-Sectional Study of the Endorsement Proportion of Reporting Guidelines in 1039 Chinese Medical Journals

Evaluating the completeness of the reporting of abstracts since the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts: an evaluation of randomized controlled trial in ten nursing journals

Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine: A review of published research and introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG)

GoodReports: developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines

Enhancing patient-reported outcome measurement in research and practice of palliative and end-of-life care

Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review

Enhancing the quality of reporting of orthodontic clinical research

The LEADING Guideline. Reporting Standards for Expert Panel, Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD) Studies.

A Change in the Trend of Quality Reporting in Leprosy Trials: A Systematic Review