Evaluating the Quality of Reporting and Transparency in the Neurosurgical Literature: How Well Are We Doing?

Background: There has been a nearly 4% annual increase in global research output. Publications indexed in Medline (PubMed) alone have increased from 158,922 in 1965 to a staggering 1,063,140 in 2021. A heightened focus in rigor and transparency is needed for proper assessment of quality and applicability to clinical decision making. Consensus generated reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA have been developed to improve the quality of data reporting. The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network provides free and easy access to these and other reporting guidelines. They outline the minimum information needed for reviewers and readers to adequately assess studies and have been increasingly adopted in the scientific community. However, their proper use and adherence in the neurosurgical literature has not yet been investigated.

Table 1

Table 2

Objective: We sought to perform a systematic assessment of the reporting quality and transparency of publications in 4 major North American neurosurgical journals.

Methods: We systematically surveyed all published articles in the last 2 calendar years in Neurosurgery (NSGY), Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS), World Neurosurgery (WNS), and Journal of Neurological Surgery Part B (JNLSB). We selected all analytical and descriptive articles and excluded nonsystematic reviews, commentaries, biographies, opinion pieces, letters to the editor, and articles only describing surgical technique. Each article was queried individually for disclosure of reporting guideline used, statement of data availability or data made publicly available through a repository, and availability analysis code syntax.

Results: We identified 3,209 peer-reviewed articles with results from analytical or descriptive studies published between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022 (448 in NSGY, 887 in JNS, 1,612 in WNS, and 262 in JNLSB). Only 485 (15.1%) reported compliance to a reporting guideline (26.1% in NSGY, 7.7% in JNS, 12.2% in WNS, and 5.7% in JNLSB with 466 (14.5%) citing adherence to the most appropriate guideline (28.6% in NSGY, 7.2% in JNS, 17.0% in WNS, and 5.7% in JNLSB). Only 131 studies (4.1%) included a data availability statement (16.3% in NSGY, 0.5% in JNS, 1.6% in WNS, and 10.7% in JNLSB) and only 11 studies (0.3%) have made their analysis code publicly available on GitHub (2.0% in NSGY, 0.1% in JNS, 0.0% in WNS, and 0.4% JNLSB).

Conclusions: We perform the first assessment of reporting quality and transparency in the neurosurgical literature. There is a substantial lack of transparency and minimal necessary reporting to appropriately assess the quality of research in Neurosurgery. This study emphasizes the need for stricter adherence to consensus guidelines such as those endorsed by the EQUATOR Network.