Transparent Communication of Radiology Research: Reporting Guidelines and Beyond.

Radiology research aims to improve patient care, quality of life, and longevity. To achieve this goal, we must transparently disseminate research findings and provide sufficient information to understand their validity and generalizability. The use of study reporting guidelines has been found to be associated with higher quality and increased citations in radiology journals (1,2) and with improved reporting of information (3) for some study designs. A long and expanding list of developed reporting guidelines is accessible from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) website (http://www.equator-network .org). In this issue, Cronin and Rawson (4) provide a comprehensive review of reporting guidelines crucially relevant to radiology researchers. The hallmark of these guidelines is that they are developed according to systematic approaches, rather than just expert opinions. They can also be updated when new evidence or concerns arise. A good example is the development of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) (5). A first version was published in 1996 and then updated in 2001. Even after the 2001 revision, growing evidence highlighted new concerns regarding the reporting of randomized controlled trials, such as selective outcome reporting (6–8). Therefore, a CONSORT Group meeting was convened in January 2007. Members of the CONSORT Group aggregated and synthesized relevant evidence regarding possible new checklist items. After seven major iterations and community feedback, the Group produced a new CONSORT statement in 2010 (9). Still, this version will probably not be the final, immutable one. To understand the current impact of these guidelines on radiology journals, we reviewed the “Instructions to Authors” section of the top-ranked radiology, nuclear medicine, and imaging journals with 2014 H-index above 100 by Scimago (http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=0c four mentioned STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, and National Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research; and two mentioned REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies, even though all these journals could publish studies where these guidelines might be relevant. All journals indicated that they follow the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. No journal has the complete list of reporting guidelines reviewed in Cronin and Rawson (4). The quality of scientific reports rests not only with authors but also with reviewers and editors. Increasingly, journals provide access to reporting guidelines to referees. However, this is not a universal practice. Journals could include specific questions to reviewers about compliance with reporting guidelines relevant to the study. Examining systematically each and all of the items that are essential in reporting a study, the reviewers may perform a more comprehensive and informative review. Reporting findings is often the last step in a scientific research life cycle. Thus, rigorous reporting guidelines do not necessarily make a study better after the completion of most research activities. These guidelines do give readers information to better judge the published research (10). However, scientific principles and sound judgment have to be applied from the very beginning and through every step in the research process. Interestingly, Radiology has placed reporting guidelines and EQUATOR information in the “Before the Study” section in their instruction to authors (http://pubs.rsna .org/page/radiology/pia/author-toolkit#before_the_study). Reporting guidelines can be useful resources for investigators even before beginning their study. Although Cronin and Rawson (4) provided a comprehensive review of many research reporting guidelines, there are still guidelines developed for radiologists that were not included in their review. When we search clinical areas of Acad Radiol 2016; 23:529–530