摘要：Widespread recognition of the need to improve the science of published research, as well as the moral and ethical reasons for adequately reporting study results, has spurred recent interest in strengthening journal research reporting through the use of reporting guidelines. Reporting guidelines also provide information for readers to judge study quality. American Journal of Public Health previously adopted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Transparent Reporting of Evaluations With Nonrandomized Designs guidelines and recently endorsed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. In adopting these guidelines, the journal aims to support authors, reviewers, and editors in reporting and evaluating systematic reviews of public health policy and practice priorities. IN RECENT YEARS THERE HAS been considerable interest in the development and strengthening of journal reporting guidelines for research. A recent systematic review, for example, identified 81 reporting guidelines for health research. 1 Reporting guidelines that have been developed include Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for randomized clinical trials 2,3 ; Transparent Reporting of Evaluations With Nonrandomized Designs (TREND) 4 ; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 5 ; the Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA) statement 6 ; Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) 7 ; the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines 8 ; the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) for studies in health care 9 ; and additional guidelines for a variety of other types of studies. 10 The rationale for improved reporting guidelines relates to the inconsistency between what studies should report and what is currently being reported in journals, including the need for assignment protocols and procedures, 2 provision of intervention details in intervention studies, 4,11–13 use of theory to guide intervention studies, 4 assessment of potential sources of bias and threats to internal validity, 11 sufficient information for judging external validity, 11,14,15 justification of study design choices, 11 and description of context, differential effects, and multilevel processes. 11 Although the specific reasons for strengthening journal reporting may vary somewhat across types of studies, there is widespread recognition of the importance of greater transparency in the reporting of individual studies to provide the necessary information for readers to judge study quality. 4 There are also moral and ethical reasons for adequately reporting study results. 16 The term reporting “guidelines” is purposefully invoked here instead of reporting “standards,” except when the original authors of the cited guidelines used the term “standards” in the titles of their contributions, as the term “guidelines” reflects the intended concept of reporting requirements.
