Bibliometric and authorship trends over a 30 year publication history in two representative US sports medicine journals

Bibliometric studies are important to understand changes and improvement opportunities in academia. This study compared bibliometric trends for two major sports medicine/arthroscopy journals, the American Journal of Sports Medicine® (AJSM®) and Arthroscopy® over the past 30 years. Trends over time and comparisons between both journals were noted for common bibliometric variables (number of authors, references, pages, citations, and corresponding author position) as well as author gender and continental origin. Appropriate statistical analyses were performed. A p < 0.001 was considered statistically significant. One representative year per decade was used. There were 814 manuscripts from AJSM® and 650 from Arthroscopy®. For AJSM® the number of manuscripts steadily increased from 86 in 1986 to 350 in 2016; for Arthroscopy® the number of manuscripts increased from 73 in 1985/1986, to 267 in 2006, but then dropped to 229 in 2016. There were significant increases in all bibliometric variables, except for the number of citations which decreased in Arthroscopy®. There were significant differences in manuscript region of origin by journal (p = 0.000002). Arthroscopy® had a greater percentage of manuscripts from Asia than AJSM® (19.3% vs 11.5%) while AJSM® had a greater percentage from North America (70.3% vs 59.2%); both journals had similar percentages from Europe (18.2% for AJSM® and 21.6% for Arthroscopy®). For AJSM® the average percentage of female first authors was 13.3%, increasing from 4.7% in 1986 to 19.3% in 2016; the average percentage of female corresponding authors was 7.3%. For Arthroscopy®, the average percentage of female first authors was 8.1%, increasing from 2.8% in 1985/1986 to 15.7% in 2016 (p = 0.00007). In conclusion, AJSM® and Arthroscopy® showed an increase in most variables analyzed. Although Arthroscopy® is climbing at a higher rate than AJSM® for female authors, AJSM® has an overall greater percentage of female authors

Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration.

Mendelian randomisation (MR) studies allow a better understanding of the causal effects of modifiable exposures on health outcomes, but the published evidence is often hampered by inadequate reporting. Reporting guidelines help authors effectively communicate all critical information about what was done and what was found. STROBE-MR (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation) assists authors in reporting their MR research clearly and transparently. Adopting STROBE-MR should help readers, reviewers, and journal editors evaluate the quality of published MR studies. This article explains the 20 items of the STROBE-MR checklist, along with their meaning and rationale, using terms defined in a glossary. Examples of transparent reporting are used for each item to illustrate best practices

Comparative analysis of authorship trends in the Journal of Hand Surgery European and American volumes: A bibliometric analysis

Background The purpose of this study was to better understand the authorship publishing trends in the field of hand surgery. To accomplish this, a comparative analysis was completed between the European and American volumes of the Journal of Hand Surgery (JHSE and JHSA) over the past three decades. Well-established bibliometric methods were used to examine one representative year from each of the past three decades. The focus of the study was to examine changes in author gender over time as well as to compare authorship trends across the two volumes. Materials and methods All JHSA and JHSE publications from 1985, 1995, 2005, and 2015 were placed into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Data was collected for each publication including the gender of first and corresponding authors, corresponding author position, corresponding author country of origin, number of credited institutions, authors, printed pages, and references. Countries were grouped by regions. Results A total of 450 and 763 manuscripts from JHSE and JHSA, respectively, met inclusion criteria. JHSE and JHSA both showed increases in most variables analyzed over time. Both journals showed an increase in female first and corresponding authors. JHSE and JHSA displayed a rise in collaboration between institutions and countries. Conclusions Both JHSE and JHSA display increasing female inclusion in the hand surgery literature, which has traditionally been a male dominated field. The observed increase in collaboration between institutions and countries is likely linked to advances in technology that allow sharing of information more conveniently and reliably than was previously possible. As further advances are made socially and technologically, hopefully these trends will continue, leading to faster and higher quality research being generated in the field of hand surgery

CONSORT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for reporting randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Well designed and properly executed randomised trials are considered the most reliable evidence on the benefits of healthcare interventions. However, there is overwhelming evidence that the quality of reporting is not optimal. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was designed to improve the quality of reporting and provides a minimum set of items to be included in a report of a randomised trial. CONSORT was first published in 1996, then updated in 2001 and 2010. Here, we present the updated CONSORT 2025 statement, which aims to account for recent methodological advancements and feedback from end users. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature and developed a project-specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence related to CONSORT, to generate a list of potential changes to the checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by the lead authors of existing CONSORT extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment), other related reporting guidelines (TIDieR) and recommendations from other sources (e.g., personal communications). The list of potential changes to the checklist was assessed in a large, international, online, three-round Delphi survey involving 317 participants and discussed at a two-day online expert consensus meeting of 30 invited international experts. RESULTS: We have made substantive changes to the CONSORT checklist. We added seven new checklist items, revised three items, deleted one item, and integrated several items from key CONSORT extensions. We also restructured the CONSORT checklist, with a new section on open science. The CONSORT 2025 statement consists of a 30-item checklist of essential items that should be included when reporting the results of a randomised trial and a diagram for documenting the flow of participants through the trial. To facilitate implementation of CONSORT 2025, we have also developed an expanded version of the CONSORT 2025 checklist, with bullet points eliciting critical elements of each item. CONCLUSIONS: Authors, editors, reviewers, and other potential users should use CONSORT 2025 when writing and evaluating manuscripts of randomised trials to ensure that trial reports are clear and transparent

TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods

The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) statement was published in 2015 to provide the minimum reporting recommendations for studies developing or evaluating the performance of a prediction model. Methodological advances in the field of prediction have since included the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI) powered by machine learning methods to develop prediction models. An update to the TRIPOD statement is thus needed. TRIPOD+AI provides harmonised guidance for reporting prediction model studies, irrespective of whether regression modelling or machine learning methods have been used. The new checklist supersedes the TRIPOD 2015 checklist, which should no longer be used. This article describes the development of TRIPOD+AI and presents the expanded 27 item checklist with more detailed explanation of each reporting recommendation, and the TRIPOD+AI for Abstracts checklist. TRIPOD+AI aims to promote the complete, accurate, and transparent reporting of studies that develop a prediction model or evaluate its performance. Complete reporting will facilitate study appraisal, model evaluation, and model implementation

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions

This research is funded by the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit programme (NIHR203568). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.Peer reviewe

SPIRIT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials

Importance The protocol of a randomised trial is the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and external review. However, trial protocols vary in their completeness and often do not address key elements of design and conduct. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was first published in 2013 as guidance to improve the completeness of trial protocols. Periodic updates incorporating the latest evidence and best practices are needed to ensure that the guidance remains relevant to users. Objective To systematically update the SPIRIT recommendations for minimum items to address in the protocol of a randomised trial. Design We completed a scoping review and developed a project specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence to generate a list of potential changes to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by lead authors of existing SPIRIT/CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment) and other reporting guidelines (TIDieR). The potential modifications were rated in a three-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting. Findings Overall, 317 individuals participated in the Delphi consensus process and 30 experts attended the consensus meeting. The process led to the addition of two new protocol items, revision to five items, deletion/merger of five items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines. Notable changes include a new open science section, additional emphasis on the assessment of harms and description of interventions and comparators, and a new item on how patients and the public will be involved in trial design, conduct, and reporting. The updated SPIRIT 2025 statement consists of an evidence-based checklist of 34 minimum items to address in a trial protocol, along with a diagram illustrating the schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments for trial participants. To facilitate implementation, we also developed an expanded version of the SPIRIT 2025 checklist and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. Conclusions and relevance Widespread endorsement and adherence to the updated SPIRIT 2025 statement have the potential to enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, funders, research ethics committees, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other reviewers

CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials

BACKGROUND: Well designed and properly executed randomised trials are considered the most reliable evidence on the benefits of healthcare interventions. However, there is overwhelming evidence that the quality of reporting is not optimal. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was designed to improve the quality of reporting and provides a minimum set of items to be included in a report of a randomised trial. CONSORT was first published in 1996, then updated in 2001 and 2010. Here, we present the updated CONSORT 2025 statement, which aims to account for recent methodological advancements and feedback from end users. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the literature and developed a project-specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence related to CONSORT, to generate a list of potential changes to the checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by the lead authors of existing CONSORT extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment), other related reporting guidelines (TIDieR) and recommendations from other sources (eg, personal communications). The list of potential changes to the checklist was assessed in a large, international, online, three-round Delphi survey involving 317 participants and discussed at a two-day online expert consensus meeting of 30 invited international experts. RESULTS: We have made substantive changes to the CONSORT checklist. We added seven new checklist items, revised three items, deleted one item, and integrated several items from key CONSORT extensions. We also restructured the CONSORT checklist, with a new section on open science. The CONSORT 2025 statement consists of a 30-item checklist of essential items that should be included when reporting the results of a randomised trial and a diagram for documenting the flow of participants through the trial. To facilitate implementation of CONSORT 2025, we have also developed an expanded version of the CONSORT 2025 checklist, with bullet points eliciting critical elements of each item. CONCLUSION: Authors, editors, reviewers, and other potential users should use CONSORT 2025 when writing and evaluating manuscripts of randomised trials to ensure that trial reports are clear and transparent

CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials

Summary points: The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2025 statement consists of a 30-item checklist of essential items for reporting the results of randomised trials This updated explanation and elaboration article describes the rationale and scientific background for each checklist item and provide published examples of good reporting This explanation and elaboration article provides detailed guidance to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of CONSORT 2025, helping to ensure that trial reports are complete and transparen