Reporting Guidelines

#Make the study assessable

Reporting guidelines describe information that readers need to understand a study's methods and findings. They often take the form of a checklist, sometimes with a participant-flow diagram. Their purpose is to reduce important omissions, making it easier to judge what was done and whether the conclusions are supported.

Different study designs need different reporting details. A randomized comparison, an observational study, a diagnostic accuracy study and a prediction-model study are not interchangeable. Choose guidance that matches the design and any relevant specialist requirements. Explain the selection rather than treating one checklist as suitable for every form of research.

#Report methods, results and limitations

Core information includes the research question, setting, eligibility rules, recruitment and study dates. Describe measurements, outcomes, sample-size reasoning and analysis methods. Explain missing data, exclusions and departures from the original plan. Where relevant, include the protocol or registration details so readers can compare planned methods with the published account.

Results need denominators, not just percentages or summary claims. Report effect sizes and uncertainty, along with important harms and inconclusive findings. Describe participant flow and relevant group characteristics. Funding, conflicts of interest, ethical review and access to data or code also provide context for appraisal, although none alone determines whether a finding is trustworthy.

#Separate reporting quality from study quality

A complete report can describe a poorly designed study. A poorly reported study may leave readers unable to determine whether suitable methods were used. These are different problems. Do not treat the proportion of checklist items reported as a direct measure of freedom from bias or clinical usefulness.

Using reporting guidance during planning can reveal information that should be recorded while the study is underway. At publication, ensure that each checklist entry points to substantive information rather than a vague statement. Readers should still assess design, analysis, relevance and consistency of conclusions with results. Transparent reporting enables that assessment; it does not replace it.

#Common misunderstandings

A reporting checklist is a guide to what a study report should explain, not a certificate that its conclusions are correct. Authors can describe a weak study thoroughly, while a poorly described study may leave readers unable to judge what actually happened. Missing information creates uncertainty; it does not automatically prove that the methods were flawed.

Not every checklist suits every study. A clinical trial, an observational study and a systematic review need different details because they answer questions in different ways. Some checklist items may not apply, but any omissions should be explained rather than silently ignored.

Clear reporting also means more than including technical terms or attaching a completed form. The information should be specific, consistent and easy to locate. Extra detail is useful when it helps readers assess the work. It should not bury important findings, harms or limitations beneath repetitive text or unexplained jargon.

#Questions worth asking a clinician

• Which reporting guideline fits this study’s design, and where can I find the completed checklist?
• Does the report explain participant selection, measurements and analysis clearly enough to assess the methods and interpret the results?
• How does the report describe uncertainty in the results, and what does that uncertainty mean for the conclusions?
• How much data was missing, how was it handled, and which departures from the original study plan were reported?
• Beyond checklist completion, what weaknesses in the study’s design or conduct could make its findings unreliable?