Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of reporting guidelines

From: Methodology and reporting quality of reporting guidelines: systematic review

Items Items Number (%)
Study type(s) to be reporteda Study design not specified 20 (33)
Randomized controlled trials 9 (15)
Laboratory/preclinical studies 5 (8)
Prospective clinical trials 2 (3)
Observational studyb 11 (18)
Economic evaluation 3 (5)
Systematic review/meta-analysis/HTAc 5 (8)
Qualitative research 2 (3)
Cross-sectional studies 2 (3)
Other specific design or types specified (diagnostic accuracy studies, quality improvement research, Realist syntheses, clinical practice guideline, Systematic review/meta-analysis/HTA) 12 (20)
Methods for initial itemsd Literature review 25 (42)
Refer to existing reporting guidelines 20 (33)
Opinions of experts or consensus of experts 16 (27)
Consensus methodse   
Formal Delphi 13 (22)
Nominal group technique 3 (5)
Consensus meeting 21 (35)
Informal Questionnaire grade 1 (2)
Circulating several versions of the statement within the group of developers and an external circle of potential users. 2 (3)
Web-based survey rating the importance of each of the checklist items 1 (2)
Terminated after fixed round(s) of Delphi 1 2 (3)
2 5 (8)
3 4 (7)
Stakeholders in the consensus process Content experts 25 (42)
Epidemiologists 7 (12)
Journal editors 14 (23)
Methodologists 19 (32)
Othersf 14 (23)
Funding Yes 36 (60)
No 4 (7)
Unclear 20 (33)
COI Yes 14 (23)
No 28 (47)
Unclear 18 (30)
  1. aSome reporting guidelines are designed for more than one type of research
  2. bIncluding various kinds of observational studies, such as case report, cohort study, case–control study cross-sectional study
  3. cHTA: Health technology assessment
  4. dSome reporting guidelines used two or more methods to generate initial items
  5. eSome reporting guidelines used two methods
  6. fIncluding clinicians, funders, students, government agencies, professional organizations, publishers and patients