• Justin E Caron, Jordon K March, Michael B Cohen, and Robert L Schmidt.
• Department of Pathology and ARUP Laboratories, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City.
• Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2017 Oct 1; 148 (4): 314-322.

ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence of reporting guideline endorsement in pathology journals and to estimate the impact of guideline endorsement.MethodsWe compared the quality of reporting in two sets of studies: (1) studies published in journals that explicitly mentioned a guideline vs studies published in journals that did not and (2) studies that cited a guideline vs studies that did not. The quality of reporting in prognostic biomarker studies was assessed using the REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK) guideline.ResultsWe found that six (10%) of the 59 leading pathology journals explicitly mention reporting guidelines in the instructions to authors. Only one journal required authors to submit a checklist. There was significant variation in the rate at which various REMARK items were reported (P < .001). Journal endorsement was associated with more complete reporting (P = .04). Studies that cited REMARK had greater adherence to the REMARK reporting guidelines than studies that did not (P = .02).ConclusionsThe prevalence of guideline endorsement is relatively low in pathology journals, but guideline endorsement may improve the quality of reporting.© American Society for Clinical Pathology, 2017. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com

20 keywords...

hide…