scientific-skills/scientific-writing/references/reporting_guidelines.md
Reporting guidelines are evidence-based recommendations for what information should be included when reporting specific types of research studies. They provide checklists and flow diagrams to ensure complete, accurate, and transparent reporting, which is essential for readers to assess study validity and for other researchers to replicate the work.
The EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) maintains a comprehensive library of reporting guidelines. Using appropriate reporting guidelines improves manuscript quality and increases the likelihood of publication acceptance.
For authors:
For readers and reviewers:
For science:
Full name: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
When to use: Any randomized controlled trial (RCT), including pilot and feasibility trials
Latest version: CONSORT 2010 (updated statement)
Key components:
Main checklist items:
Extensions for specific designs:
Where to access: http://www.consort-statement.org/
Full name: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
When to use: Cohort studies, case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies
Latest version: STROBE 2007 (widely adopted standard)
Key study designs covered:
Main checklist items (22 items):
Extensions:
Where to access: https://www.strobe-statement.org/
Full name: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
When to use: Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis
Latest version: PRISMA 2020 (significant update)
Key components:
Main sections:
Extensions:
Where to access: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
Full name: Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials
When to use: Protocols for randomized trials and other planned intervention studies
Latest version: SPIRIT 2013
Purpose: Ensure trial protocols contain complete descriptions before trial begins
Main checklist items (33 items):
Where to access: https://www.spirit-statement.org/
Full name: Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
When to use: Studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy
Latest version: STARD 2015
Main checklist items (30 items):
Flow diagram: Shows participant flow and test results
Where to access: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard/
Full name: Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis
When to use: Studies developing, validating, or updating prediction models
Latest version: TRIPOD 2015
Types of studies:
Main checklist items (22 items):
Where to access: https://www.tripod-statement.org/
Full name: Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments
When to use: All in vivo animal studies
Latest version: ARRIVE 2.0 (2020 update)
Two sets of items:
ARRIVE Essential 10 (minimum requirements):
ARRIVE Recommended Set (additional items for full reporting):
Where to access: https://arriveguidelines.org/
Full name: CAse REport Guidelines
When to use: Case reports and case series
Latest version: CARE 2013
Main checklist items (13 items):
Where to access: https://www.care-statement.org/
Full name: Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence
When to use: Healthcare quality improvement reports
Latest version: SQUIRE 2.0 (2015)
Main sections (18 items):
Where to access: http://www.squire-statement.org/
Full name: Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards
When to use: Health economic evaluations
Latest version: CHEERS 2022 (major update from 2013)
Main checklist items (28 items):
Where to access: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/cheers/
Full name: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research
When to use: Qualitative and mixed methods research
Latest version: SRQR 2014
Main sections:
Alternative: COREQ (Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research) for interviews and focus groups
Where to access: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/srqr/
Item 7: Eligibility criteria for participants, and the settings and locations where the data were collected
Page 6, lines 112-125: "Participants were community-dwelling adults aged 60-85 years with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) as defined by Petersen criteria. Exclusion criteria included dementia diagnosis, major psychiatric disorders, or unstable medical conditions. Recruitment occurred from three memory clinics in Boston, MA, between January 2022 and December 2023."
Website: https://www.equator-network.org/
How to use:
| If your study is a... | Use this guideline |
|---|---|
| Randomized controlled trial | CONSORT |
| Cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional study | STROBE |
| Systematic review or meta-analysis | PRISMA |
| Protocol for a trial | SPIRIT |
| Diagnostic accuracy study | STARD |
| Prediction model study | TRIPOD |
| Animal study | ARRIVE |
| Case report | CARE |
| Quality improvement study | SQUIRE |
| Economic evaluation | CHEERS |
| Qualitative research | SRQR or COREQ |
Some studies may require multiple guidelines:
Example 1: Pilot RCT with qualitative component
Example 2: Systematic review of diagnostic tests
Many reporting guidelines have extensions for specific contexts:
Four stages:
Example:
Assessed for eligibility (n=250)
↓
Excluded (n=50)
• Did not meet criteria (n=30)
• Declined to participate (n=15)
• Other reasons (n=5)
↓
Randomized (n=200)
├─────────────────┬─────────────────┐
↓ ↓ ↓
Allocated to Allocated to Allocated to
Intervention A Intervention B Control
(n=67) (n=66) (n=67)
↓ ↓ ↓
Lost to follow-up Lost to follow-up Lost to follow-up
(n=3) (n=5) (n=2)
↓ ↓ ↓
Analyzed Analyzed Analyzed
(n=64) (n=61) (n=65)
Stages:
New features in PRISMA 2020:
Impact: Missing critical information, lower chance of acceptance
Solution: Identify and use appropriate guideline from study planning stage
Impact: May realize key data were not collected or documented
Solution: Review guidelines during study design and data collection
Impact: Missed items remain unreported
Solution: Systematically address every single checklist item
Impact: Missing recent improvements in reporting standards
Solution: Always check for latest version on official guideline website
Impact: Important design-specific elements not reported
Solution: Carefully match study design to appropriate guideline
Impact: Editorial desk rejection or delays
Solution: Check journal submission guidelines and include checklist
Impact: Insufficient detail for replication or appraisal
Solution: Provide specific, detailed information for each item
"This study is reported in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of
Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. A completed STROBE
checklist is provided as Supplementary File 1."
Before starting your study:
During manuscript drafting:
Before submission:
| Venue Type | Guideline Use | Transparency Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Medical journals | Mandatory (CONSORT, STROBE, etc.) | Checklist required at submission |
| PLOS/BMC | Mandatory for study types | Checklist uploaded as supplement |
| Nature/Science | Recommended | Methods completeness emphasized |
| ML conferences | No formal guidelines | Reproducibility details required |
NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR reproducibility requirements:
What to include (typically in appendix):
What gets checked:
Common issues leading to rejection:
Methods statement examples:
Journal (STROBE):
This study followed STROBE reporting guidelines. Checklist provided in Supplement 1.
ML conference (reproducibility):
Code available at github.com/user/project. All hyperparameters in Appendix A.
Training used 4×A100 GPUs (~20 hours). Seeds: {42, 123, 456}.
For clinical trials (medical journals):
For observational studies (medical/epidemiology):
For systematic reviews:
For ML conference papers: