There is no reliable evidence that providing authors with customized article templates including items from reporting guidelines improves completeness of reporting: the GoodReports randomized trial (GRReaT).

Abstract

Background: Although medical journals endorse reporting guidelines, authors often struggle to find and use the right one for their study type and topic. The UK EQUATOR Centre developed the GoodReports website to direct authors to appropriate guidance. Pilot data suggested that authors did not improve their manuscripts when advised to use a particular reporting guideline by GoodReports.org at journal submission stage. User feedback suggested the checklist format of most reporting guidelines does not encourage use during manuscript writing. We tested whether providing customized reporting guidance within writing templates for use throughout the writing process resulted in clearer and more complete reporting than only giving advice on which reporting guideline to use.

Design and methods: GRReaT was a two-group parallel 1:1 randomized trial with a target sample size of 206. Participants were lead authors at an early stage of writing up a health-related study. Eligible study designs were cohort, cross-sectional, or case-control study, randomized trial, and systematic review. After randomization, the intervention group received an article template including items from the appropriate reporting guideline and links to explanations and examples. The control group received a reporting guideline recommendation and general advice on reporting. Participants sent their completed manuscripts to the GRReaT team before submitting for publication, for completeness of each item in the title, methods, and results section of the corresponding reporting guideline. The primary outcome was reporting completeness against the corresponding reporting guideline. Participants were not blinded to allocation. Assessors were blind to group allocation. As a recruitment incentive, all participants received a feedback report identifying missing or inadequately reported items in these three sections.

Results: Between 9 June 2021 and 30 June 2023, we randomized 130 participants, 65 to the intervention and 65 to the control group. We present findings from the assessment of reporting completeness for the 37 completed manuscripts we received, 18 in the intervention group and 19 in the control group. The mean (standard deviation) proportion of completely reported items from the title, methods, and results sections of the manuscripts (primary outcome) was 0.57 (0.18) in the intervention group and 0.50 (0.17) in the control group. The mean difference between the two groups was 0.069 (95% CI -0.046 to 0.184; p = 0.231). In the sensitivity analysis, when partially reported items were counted as completely reported, the mean (standard deviation) proportion of completely reported items was 0.75 (0.15) in the intervention group and 0.71 (0.11) in the control group. The mean difference between the two groups was 0.036 (95% CI -0.127 to 0.055; p = 0.423).

Conclusion: As the dropout rate was higher than expected, we did not reach the recruitment target, and the difference between groups was not statistically significant. We therefore found no evidence that providing authors with customized article templates including items from reporting guidelines, increases reporting completeness. We discuss the challenges faced when conducting the trial and suggest how future research testing innovative ways of improving reporting could be designed to improve recruitment and reduce dropouts.