Standard of Reporting

Last Updated: October 2026

ETFLIN requires manuscripts to report research methods, results, and scientific observations clearly, accurately, transparently, and in accordance with recognized standards appropriate to the study design and subject area.

Reporting guidelines help authors provide the information necessary for readers, reviewers, and editors to understand how a study was conducted, assess the reliability of its findings, and interpret its conclusions. They also improve consistency in scientific communication and facilitate the evaluation and, where appropriate, replication of published research.

Authors are expected to identify and follow the reporting guideline that most appropriately matches their research design. Where a relevant guideline has an established checklist, authors must complete and submit the checklist in accordance with the requirements specified below and the applicable journal instructions.

Reporting guidelines must be applied according to their intended scope. A guideline for reporting trial protocols must not be substituted for a guideline for reporting trial results, and a methodological handbook must not be treated as equivalent to a formal reporting checklist.

Compliance with a reporting guideline does not, by itself, establish that a study is methodologically sound or that its conclusions are valid. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and scientific integrity of the reported work.

Reporting Guidelines by Study Design

Randomized Controlled Trials

Reports of randomized controlled trials must follow the applicable CONSORT 2025 Statement, including a relevant extension when the trial design or intervention requires additional reporting items.

Authors should report the trial design, eligibility criteria, recruitment procedures, intervention and comparator details, randomization and allocation procedures, blinding where applicable, prespecified outcomes, sample-size considerations, statistical methods, participant flow, results, adverse events, and study limitations.

The report must distinguish prespecified analyses from exploratory or post hoc analyses. Material changes to the original study protocol, outcomes, or analytical plan should be identified and explained.

A completed CONSORT checklist must accompany the submission, together with a participant flow diagram where applicable. If a particular checklist item does not apply to the study, authors should indicate this and provide an explanation where necessary.

Relevant extensions should be used when appropriate, including guidance for specific trial designs, interventions, or reporting circumstances. For example, trials involving non-pharmacological interventions, cluster randomization, or interventions involving artificial intelligence may require additional reporting considerations. The appropriate extension should be selected according to the study rather than applied indiscriminately.

Clinical Trial Protocols

Manuscripts reporting protocols for randomized trials must follow the SPIRIT 2025 Statement where applicable.

A protocol report should describe the planned study design, objectives, eligibility criteria, intervention, comparator, outcomes, sample-size rationale, allocation procedures, data collection, statistical analysis, monitoring, and other information necessary to understand the planned trial.

Authors must clearly distinguish a protocol describing planned methods from a completed trial report presenting observed results. A SPIRIT checklist is intended to support protocol reporting and does not replace CONSORT when the results of a completed randomized trial are reported.

Where protocol registration or publication has occurred, the relevant registry identifier or protocol reference should be reported. Applicable clinical trial registration and ethical requirements remain separate obligations and are not replaced by adherence to SPIRIT.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses must follow the PRISMA 2020 Statement, including applicable extensions for specialized review types.

Authors should report the review question, eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategies, search dates, selection procedures, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment where applicable, synthesis methods, and limitations of the evidence. The manuscript should provide a transparent account of how studies were identified, assessed, included, and excluded.

Where required by the applicable PRISMA guidance, authors must provide the relevant checklist and study-selection flow diagram. Search strategies should be sufficiently detailed to allow readers to understand how the evidence was identified.

A meta-analysis should explain the methods used to combine study results, assess heterogeneity, investigate potential bias, and interpret the combined estimates. The presence of pooled results does not, by itself, establish that the evidence is reliable; methodological differences and limitations must be considered.

For scoping reviews, authors should use the PRISMA-ScR extension where applicable. For protocols describing planned systematic reviews, the PRISMA-P guidance should be considered instead of using the completed-review checklist as a substitute for protocol reporting.

Review registration and reporting are separate activities. Where a review has been registered or its protocol has been published, the relevant information should be reported accurately. Registration does not replace the need to follow the appropriate reporting guideline.

The Cochrane Handbook may be consulted when relevant for systematic review methodology, but it is not a substitute for the applicable PRISMA reporting checklist.

Observational Studies

Observational studies, including cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, must follow the STROBE Statement or an appropriate extension for the relevant study design.

Reports should identify the study design, setting, dates, population, participant selection, variables, data sources, measurement methods, potential sources of bias, study size, statistical methods, results, and limitations.

Authors must explain how missing data, confounding, selection bias, and other methodological issues were addressed when relevant to the study. The statistical analysis and interpretation should be reported sufficiently to allow readers to assess the strength and limitations of the findings.

Studies based on routinely collected health data, administrative databases, or comparable data sources should use the relevant reporting extension where appropriate, such as RECORD.

A completed checklist should accompany the submission where required by this policy and the applicable journal instructions. The checklist must reflect the actual manuscript rather than merely indicate that each item has been considered.

Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Studies evaluating the accuracy of diagnostic tests, biomarkers, classification methods, or comparable diagnostic procedures must follow the applicable STARD reporting guideline.

The manuscript should describe the intended use of the test, study population, eligibility criteria, reference standard, index test, procedures for conducting and interpreting tests, and methods used to estimate diagnostic performance.

Authors should report relevant measures of diagnostic accuracy, uncertainty estimates, missing or indeterminate results, participant flow, and limitations that may affect the interpretation or applicability of the findings.

When artificial intelligence is used in a diagnostic accuracy study, authors should consider the STARD-AI extension in addition to the applicable diagnostic accuracy reporting requirements.

Authors must identify the reference standard and explain its suitability. Claims about clinical performance must be supported by the reported evidence and must not exceed what the study design permits.

Prediction Models and Artificial Intelligence

Studies that develop, validate, or update prediction models must follow the TRIPOD+AI Statement where applicable. This guideline covers prediction models using regression methods as well as machine learning approaches.

The report should describe the intended use of the model, data sources, study population, predictors, outcome definitions, handling of missing data, model development and validation procedures, relevant analytical choices, and measures used to evaluate performance.

Authors should explain how data were separated for model development and evaluation, whether internal or external validation was undertaken, and how potential overfitting or other sources of bias were addressed. Performance measures should be reported with appropriate uncertainty estimates and interpreted in the context of the intended application.

When relevant, authors should describe calibration, discrimination, clinical utility, limitations in generalizability, and the consequences of using the model in populations or settings different from those represented in the development data.

For research involving large language models in biomedical or healthcare applications, the TRIPOD-LLM reporting guidance should be considered when the study falls within its scope.

The use of AI does not remove the requirement for transparent reporting of methods, data, model configuration, evaluation procedures, and limitations. The guideline should be selected according to the actual research question: diagnostic accuracy and prediction-model studies do not necessarily use the same reporting framework.

Clinical Case Reports and Case Series

Clinical case reports should follow the CARE guidelines where applicable.

Authors should provide a clear account of the clinical or scientific context, relevant patient or case information, observations, diagnostic assessment, intervention where applicable, outcomes, follow-up, and the interpretation of the case. The report should explain why the case contributes meaningfully to existing knowledge and should acknowledge the limitations of conclusions drawn from an individual case.

Case series should describe how cases were identified and selected, the relevant study setting and period, the characteristics of the cases, outcomes, missing information, and the limitations affecting interpretation. Authors must distinguish descriptive observations from conclusions that require stronger comparative evidence.

The reporting guideline does not replace the applicable consent, confidentiality, or ethical requirements. Identifiable patient information must be handled in accordance with the relevant ethical and publication requirements.

Animal Research

Research involving live animals must be reported according to the applicable ARRIVE Guidelines 2.0.

Authors should address the ARRIVE Essential 10, which provides the basic reporting information needed to assess the reliability of animal research. The recommended set should also be considered where applicable to provide additional methodological context.

The report should describe the study design, experimental units, sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria, randomization, blinding, outcome measures, statistical methods, and experimental procedures. Authors should provide sufficient details about the animals, interventions, housing or husbandry where relevant, and procedures necessary to understand how the study was conducted.

The reporting must allow readers to assess whether the design and analysis support the conclusions and whether important sources of bias have been considered.

A completed ARRIVE checklist should be submitted where required by the applicable journal instructions. Adherence to ARRIVE does not replace animal ethics approval or other requirements governing animal welfare and research conduct.

Qualitative Research

Qualitative studies should follow the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) or another appropriate qualitative reporting guideline relevant to the research approach.

The report should explain the research purpose, qualitative approach, context, participant selection, data collection, analytical procedures, reflexivity where relevant, and the basis for the interpretation of findings.

Authors should provide sufficient detail to allow readers to understand how the analysis was performed and how the presented findings were derived from the collected material. The report should also address relevant limitations, including those concerning participant selection, context, interpretation, and transferability.

For qualitative studies based primarily on interviews or focus groups, the COREQ checklist should be used where applicable. COREQ is designed specifically for these methods and should not automatically be treated as the universal checklist for every qualitative study.

Mixed-Methods Research

Mixed-methods studies combine qualitative and quantitative approaches within a coherent research design. Authors should describe the rationale for combining these approaches, the methods used for each component, and how the components were integrated during analysis or interpretation.

The report should explain the relationship between the qualitative and quantitative findings rather than present them as unrelated components. Relevant limitations arising from data collection, analysis, integration, and differences between the methods should be acknowledged.

The GRAMMS guidance may be used where appropriate, particularly for mixed-methods research in health services. Authors should follow a more specialized guideline if one better matches the design and field of the study.

Where a suitable checklist is available, authors should provide it when required by the relevant journal instructions.

Health Economic Evaluations

Studies reporting economic evaluations of health interventions should follow the CHEERS 2022 Statement where applicable.

The report should identify the decision problem, perspective, target population, setting, comparators, time horizon, outcomes, measurement and valuation methods, resource use, costs, analytical assumptions, and methods used to assess uncertainty where relevant.

Authors should explain the analytical framework and the basis for the economic conclusions. The interpretation should account for relevant assumptions, limitations, transferability, and uncertainties affecting the results.

When an economic evaluation concerns an intervention that uses artificial intelligence, the applicable CHEERS-AI extension should be considered in addition to the general economic evaluation reporting requirements.

The completed checklist should be provided where required by the applicable journal instructions.

Intervention Descriptions

When the reproducibility of an intervention is important to understanding the reported research, authors should use the TIDieR checklist as a supplementary reporting aid.

Interventions should be described sufficiently to enable readers to understand what was delivered, by whom, how, where, and under what conditions. Depending on the intervention, relevant information may include materials, procedures, dosage or intensity, timing, adaptations, modifications, and how adherence or implementation was assessed.

TIDieR complements rather than replaces the reporting guideline appropriate to the underlying study design. For example, a randomized trial may require CONSORT alongside TIDieR where detailed intervention reporting is relevant.

Quality Improvement Studies

Studies evaluating quality improvement initiatives in healthcare should follow SQUIRE 2.0 where appropriate.

Reports should explain the local problem, rationale for the intervention, context, methods used to study the intervention, measures, analytical approach, results, interpretation, and limitations. Authors should distinguish an improvement initiative from a conventional experimental study when their purposes and methods differ.

Where appropriate, the manuscript should describe how context and implementation influenced the observed results and whether the findings may be transferable to other settings.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

Manuscripts reporting the development, adaptation, or presentation of clinical practice guidelines should use an appropriate reporting framework, such as the RIGHT Statement, where applicable.

The report should make the purpose, target population, intended users, evidence sources, methods for developing recommendations, and relevant contributors or decision-making processes sufficiently transparent. The basis for recommendations and any material limitations or uncertainties should be described clearly.

Reporting a clinical practice guideline is distinct from appraising its methodological quality. Authors should choose the appropriate tool for the actual purpose of the manuscript and must not treat a guideline appraisal instrument as a substitute for a reporting checklist.

Other Research Designs

Not all research designs have a single universally accepted reporting checklist. This may include certain laboratory experiments, in-vitro studies, computational investigations, phytochemical analyses, aquatic and environmental research, bibliometric studies, community-based research, and other specialized investigations.

For these submissions, authors must provide a transparent and reproducible account of the research methods, materials, data sources, procedures, controls, measurements, analytical approaches, and limitations appropriate to the study.

Where a recognized discipline-specific guideline or reporting standard exists, authors should follow the most relevant available guidance. The EQUATOR Network reporting guideline library can assist authors in identifying applicable guidelines, particularly for health and clinical research.

Authors should not apply a guideline merely because its subject appears similar to their research. If no suitable guideline exists, the manuscript should instead provide the methodological information necessary for a rigorous scientific assessment.

Application of Reporting Guidelines

Authors must select the guideline according to the research design and the version of the work being reported. The current relevant version should be used, together with an applicable extension when the guideline developers provide one for a particular design, intervention, or analysis.

Where a completed checklist is available for the relevant design, authors must submit it with the manuscript when required by this policy or the relevant journal's author instructions. A flow diagram or another reporting aid should also be provided when applicable to the selected guideline.

Checklist responses must correspond to the submitted manuscript. Authors should identify the relevant page, section, table, or figure where each applicable item is addressed, in accordance with the checklist format. Items that do not apply should be marked appropriately and explained where necessary.

Submitting a checklist does not require authors to claim that a method or procedure was performed when it was not. Missing information must not be concealed by marking an item as complete when the manuscript does not adequately report it.

Where an author believes that a recommended checklist is not suitable for the design, the author should explain the reason to the editor and identify a more appropriate guideline where available. The editor may request additional information or a different checklist if the proposed approach does not adequately support transparent reporting.

Reporting guidelines should be used during manuscript preparation and not merely completed after the manuscript has been written. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the final report remains consistent with the checklist after revision.

Editorial Assessment of Reporting Standards

The editorial team may assess whether an appropriate reporting guideline has been selected and whether the manuscript provides the information necessary to evaluate the study.

Where a required checklist is missing, incomplete, or inconsistent with the manuscript, the editorial office may request correction before further evaluation. Editors and reviewers may also request clarification of specific reporting items when the available information is insufficient to assess the study.

Incomplete reporting does not necessarily establish that the underlying research was conducted improperly. However, when essential information is missing and cannot be adequately clarified, the editor may determine that the manuscript is unsuitable for publication.

A completed checklist does not guarantee acceptance. Editorial decisions remain based on the scientific contribution, methodological rigor, reliability of the findings, relevance to the journal, and compliance with applicable publication requirements.

Nomenclature and Standardized Terminology

Authors must use scientific names, technical terminology, symbols, and units consistently and accurately throughout the manuscript. Terminology should be appropriate to the relevant discipline and sufficiently precise to prevent ambiguity.

Standardized nomenclature facilitates interpretation, indexing, scientific communication, and comparison between studies. Where an established international or discipline-specific naming standard exists, authors should use the applicable standard rather than introducing an unrecognized alternative.

Chemical and Pharmaceutical Nomenclature

Chemical substances should be identified using internationally recognized nomenclature and terminology. Authors should follow applicable IUPAC recommendations and nomenclature guides when systematic chemical naming is necessary.

A widely accepted common name may be used when it is unambiguous and appropriate to the field. Where necessary for precise identification, authors should also provide the systematic name, chemical structure, molecular formula, or another suitable identifier.

For pharmaceutical substances, the recognized generic or nonproprietary name should normally be used in preference to a brand name. A commercial product name may be included when its specific identity is relevant to the research; it should not replace the identification of the active substance.

Chemical names, abbreviations, formulas, and compound identifiers must be used consistently between the main text, tables, figures, and supplementary materials. Authors should distinguish clearly between compounds, mixtures, extracts, formulations, and commercial products when the distinction is scientifically important.

Biological and Taxonomic Nomenclature

Scientific names of organisms must follow recognized taxonomic nomenclature and be consistent throughout the manuscript. For binomial scientific names, the genus and species should ordinarily be italicized. The genus should be written in full at first mention and may be abbreviated subsequently when the meaning remains unambiguous.

Authors must identify organisms as accurately as practicable and use an authoritative taxonomic resource or relevant nomenclatural code when necessary. Names should not be changed arbitrarily between the manuscript, figures, tables, and supplementary materials.

For algae, fungi, and plants, authors should follow the applicable International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. For animals, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature provides the relevant rules for zoological names. For prokaryotes, authors should use the applicable prokaryotic nomenclature standards and recognized taxonomic resources. For viruses, authors should consult the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) and the current approved taxonomy.

Where taxonomic identification is central to the study, authors should provide the additional identifying information required by the relevant discipline, such as a voucher specimen, accession identifier, strain designation, or authoritative taxonomic reference where applicable.

Gene, Protein, and Sequence-Variant Nomenclature

Gene symbols, protein names, and sequence variants must be described according to the relevant organism-specific and molecular nomenclature conventions.

For human genes, authors should use approved symbols and names from the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) where applicable. For other organisms, the corresponding species-specific nomenclature authority or recognized database should be consulted.

Gene and protein symbols should follow the formatting conventions applicable to the organism and field. Authors must not assume that gene symbols and protein symbols use identical capitalization or typographic conventions across all species.

Sequence variants should be described using the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) recommendations where applicable. Variant descriptions must identify the relevant reference sequence and version where necessary to make the description unambiguous.

When genome assemblies or reference sequences are relevant to the reported analysis, authors should identify the applicable assembly, reference accession, or version. The Genome Reference Consortium provides information on reference genome assemblies and should not be treated as a substitute for organism-specific gene nomenclature standards or variant-description recommendations.

Units, Symbols, and Quantities

Authors should use the International System of Units (SI) consistently, following the applicable SI Brochure published by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), unless a recognized discipline-specific convention or a scientifically justified alternative is appropriate.

Quantities and units must be reported unambiguously. Authors should ensure that symbols, prefixes, conversions, measurement conditions, and significant figures are used consistently. Where a non-SI unit is retained because it is customary or necessary in a particular discipline, its meaning should be clear and any conversion should be provided where helpful.

Equations, mathematical symbols, statistical notation, and variable names must be defined and used consistently. The manuscript should make clear what numerical values represent and which units or statistical measures apply.

Abbreviations and Technical Terminology

Abbreviations and acronyms must be defined at first use unless they are universally recognized within the relevant field or are required by the journal's style. They should be used consistently and should not unnecessarily obscure the meaning of the text.

Authors should avoid introducing multiple abbreviations for the same concept or using the same abbreviation for different concepts within one manuscript. Abbreviations in titles, headings, tables, and figure legends should be limited to those that improve clarity or are established in the discipline.

Technical terms must be used according to their accepted scientific meaning. Where terminology is contested, discipline-specific, or likely to be interpreted differently by different audiences, authors should define the intended meaning and apply it consistently.

Consistency Across Manuscript Components

Scientific names, compound identifiers, gene symbols, units, abbreviations, numerical values, and technical terms must remain consistent across the main text, abstract, tables, figures, supplementary materials, and associated captions.

Authors must check that reported values, labels, units, reference identifiers, and nomenclature correspond to the underlying methods and results. Discrepancies that could affect interpretation should be corrected before submission or explained explicitly where appropriate.

The use of standardized nomenclature supports clear scientific communication but does not replace the need for sufficiently detailed methods, accurate data reporting, and appropriate interpretation of findings.

Policy Review

ETFLIN will periodically review this policy to maintain consistency with current reporting guidelines, relevant disciplinary standards, and changes in scientific nomenclature.

Authors are responsible for consulting the current version of the applicable guideline and following any relevant extension or updated nomenclature standard that applies to their research.

Questions concerning reporting standards or nomenclature may be directed to the editorial office of the relevant ETFLIN journal.