Reporting Study Designs in Korean Medical Journal Articles
Abstract
Soo Young Kim,1 Sue Kim,2 Hyun Jung Yi3
Objective
This study evaluated whether study designs were reported in papers published in Korean medical journals and whether the reported study designs were appropriate. Additionally, factors influencing such reporting and appropriateness were investigated.
Design
A cross-sectional study was conducted in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. A total of 600 articles, representing 5% of the 12,000 articles indexed in KoreaMed (www.koreamed.org, a comprehensive search portal managed by the Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors that includes 288 member journals in the fields of medicine, dentistry, nursing, nutrition, and veterinary medicine) were randomly selected for analysis between January and December 2023. The inclusion criteria specified human participant studies published in either Korean or English. Articles classified as reviews, letters, editorials, or case reports were excluded. These exclusions were applied during the initial random selection process. The primary outcomes assessed were (1) whether the research design was stated in the title, abstract, or methods section; (2) whether the research design was appropriate, as evaluated using the Design Algorithm for Medical Literature on Intervention1; and (3) whether the journal submission guidelines referenced reporting guidelines, including mention of the EQUATOR Network.2 Two independent reviewers evaluated the full texts of the selected articles. Any discrepancies in assessment were resolved through discussion until a consensus was achieved. A χ² test was used to examine associations between the reporting study design and (1) the inclusion of reporting guidelines in journal submission policies and (2) references to the EQUATOR Network.
Results
Of the 600 articles obtained through a 5% random sampling, a total of 233 articles were included. Among them, 149 (63.9%) reported the study design in at least 1 section: the title (n = 64 [27.5%]), abstract (n = 92 [39.5%]), or methods (n = 129 [55.4%]). However, only 58 of 149 (38.9%) appropriately reported their study design. The reasons for inappropriate study design reporting were (1) mislabeling of nondesign elements as study designs (eg, subgroup analysis, retrospective study [n= 37]), (2) incorrect classification of study design (eg, describing a cohort study as a case-control study [n = 36]), and (3) insufficient detail in describing the study design (eg, labeling a nonrandomized study as a phase trial, labeling a cohort study as a longitudinal study [n = 18]). Reporting guidelines in submission policies, including reference to the EQUATOR Network, showed no significant association with either the reporting or appropriateness of study designs.
Conclusions
More than half of the articles in Korean medical journals reported their study designs, yet only small fractions were deemed appropriate. Enhanced education for researchers on study design is necessary to improve reporting quality.
References
1. Seo HJ, Kim SY, Lee YJ, et al. A newly developed tool for classifying study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed substantial reliability and validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:200-205. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.09.013
2. The EQUATOR Network. Accessed January 13, 2025. https://www.equator-network.org
1Department of Family Medicine, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, hallymfm@gmail.com; 2College of Nursing, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea; 3Medical Library, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, Guri, Korea.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
None reported.