Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) -- a 27-item checklist plus flow diagram for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; see the CASRAI terms for <a href='/dictionary/term/prisma-2020'>PRISMA 2020</a> and the <a href='/dictionary/term/prisma-flow-diagram'>PRISMA flow diagram</a>.
- Is an instance
CONSORT 2010 -- the reporting guideline for randomized controlled trials, requiring disclosure of randomization method, allocation concealment, blinding, and participant flow; see <a href='/dictionary/term/consort-2010'>CONSORT 2010</a>.
- Is an instance
STROBE -- the reporting guideline for observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional); see <a href='/dictionary/term/strobe'>STROBE</a>.
- Is an instance
ARRIVE 2.0 -- the reporting guideline for in vivo animal research, covering sample-size justification, randomization, and blinding in animal experiments; see <a href='/dictionary/term/arrive-2-0'>ARRIVE 2.0</a>.
- Is an instance
CARE -- the reporting guideline for clinical case reports; see <a href='/dictionary/term/care-case-report-guidelines'>CARE Case Report Guidelines</a>.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
ICH Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is a conduct/methodological standard governing how a clinical trial must be designed, monitored, and documented -- not a reporting guideline for how the resulting paper should be written.
- Not an instance
The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools evaluate the internal validity of a study's design and execution; they judge study quality rather than prescribe what a manuscript must disclose, so they are critical-appraisal instruments, not reporting guidelines, even though PRISMA-compliant systematic reviews typically use both.
- Not an instance
A journal's general author-instructions page (word limits, reference style, figure formatting) is a house style requirement, not a reporting guideline -- it is not built through the consensus, evidence-based development methodology EQUATOR requires for inclusion in its library.
Editorial commentary
Reporting guidelines are checklists, flow diagrams, or structured-text tools that specify the minimum set of information authors must include when writing up a specific type of study, so that readers, peer reviewers, and editors can judge what was done and trust that nothing material has been left out. The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network, an international initiative founded in 2006 and based at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Statistics in Medicine (NDORMS), is the field’s central clearinghouse: it defines a reporting guideline as a checklist, flow diagram, or structured text developed using an explicit, documented consensus methodology to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, and it maintains a searchable library of several hundred such guidelines spanning study designs, specialties, and report sections.
A reporting guideline is not a methodological standard. It does not tell an investigator how to design a trial, calculate a sample size, randomize participants, or run an assay — that is the job of methodological/conduct standards such as ICH Good Clinical Practice, CIOMS guidance, or a funder’s data-collection protocol. Nor is a reporting guideline a critical-appraisal or risk-of-bias tool — it does not score how well a study was conducted (that is the role of instruments such as the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools). A reporting guideline answers a narrower, prior question: given that the study was conducted a particular way, has the write-up disclosed enough about it — the eligibility criteria, the randomization method, the funding source, the flow of participants — for a reader to evaluate and, ideally, reproduce the work? An author can follow a reporting guideline to the letter while having run a methodologically weak study, and a well-conducted study can still be reported so incompletely that a reader cannot tell.
Which guideline applies to which study type
The EQUATOR Network’s library groups reporting guidelines by study design. The table below covers the guidelines most commonly required by journals and funders; CASRAI’s companion guide, The EQUATOR Network: Which Reporting Guideline Does Your Study Need?, walks through the full routing logic and links each guideline’s own checklist item-by-item.
| Study type | Reporting guideline |
|---|---|
| Randomized controlled trial | CONSORT (2025 revision, 30 items) |
| RCT protocol (pre-trial) | SPIRIT |
| Observational study (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional) | STROBE |
| Systematic review / meta-analysis | PRISMA 2020 |
| Scoping review | PRISMA-ScR |
| Qualitative research (interviews, focus groups) | COREQ |
| Qualitative research (broader designs) | SRQR |
| Diagnostic accuracy study | STARD |
| Prediction model (development/validation) | TRIPOD (TRIPOD+AI for ML-based models) |
| Animal (in vivo) research | ARRIVE 2.0 |
| Quality improvement study | SQUIRE 2.0 |
| Clinical case report | CARE |
| Health economic evaluation | CHEERS 2022 |
The EQUATOR Network
The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network, founded in 2006 and based at the University of Oxford’s Centre for Statistics in Medicine (NDORMS), is the field’s central clearinghouse for reporting guidelines. It maintains a searchable library of several hundred guidelines and requires each one to be built through an explicit, documented consensus-development methodology — typically a systematic review of existing guidance, a structured Delphi-style consensus process among methodologists, clinicians, journal editors, and statisticians, and public piloting — before it is listed. That development bar is what distinguishes an EQUATOR-listed reporting guideline from an ad hoc journal checklist.
AI-specific reporting guideline extensions
As AI/ML methods have entered clinical and biomedical research, several EQUATOR-listed extensions now address AI-specific reporting needs: CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI (randomized-trial results and protocols for AI interventions, published simultaneously in BMJ, Nature Medicine, and Lancet Digital Health in 2020), TRIPOD+AI (a 2024 BMJ statement unifying regression- and machine-learning-based prediction model reporting, superseding 2015 TRIPOD for that purpose), and DECIDE-AI (early-stage clinical evaluation of AI decision-support systems, published in Nature Medicine and BMJ in 2022).
What a reporting guideline is not
A reporting guideline is not a methodological or conduct standard — it does not tell an investigator how to design a trial, calculate a sample size, randomize participants, or run an assay; that is the role of standards such as ICH Good Clinical Practice or a funder’s data-collection protocol. It is also not a critical-appraisal or risk-of-bias tool — it does not score how well a study was conducted, only whether the write-up discloses enough for a reader to judge that. And a general journal author-instructions page (word limits, reference style) is a house-style requirement, not a reporting guideline, because it is not built through EQUATOR’s consensus, evidence-based development methodology.
Worked examples
- PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) — a 27-item checklist plus flow diagram for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; see the CASRAI terms for PRISMA 2020 and the PRISMA flow diagram.
- CONSORT 2010 — the reporting guideline for randomized controlled trials, requiring disclosure of randomization method, allocation concealment, blinding, and participant flow; see CONSORT 2010.
- STROBE — the reporting guideline for observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional); see STROBE.
- ARRIVE 2.0 — the reporting guideline for in vivo animal research, covering sample-size justification, randomization, and blinding in animal experiments; see ARRIVE 2.0.
- CARE — the reporting guideline for clinical case reports; see CARE Case Report Guidelines.
Counter-examples
- ICH Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is a conduct/methodological standard governing how a clinical trial must be designed, monitored, and documented — not a reporting guideline for how the resulting paper should be written.
- The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools evaluate the internal validity of a study’s design and execution; they judge study quality rather than prescribe what a manuscript must disclose, so they are critical-appraisal instruments, not reporting guidelines, even though PRISMA-compliant systematic reviews typically use both.
- A journal’s general author-instructions page (word limits, reference style, figure formatting) is a house style requirement, not a reporting guideline — it is not built through the consensus, evidence-based development methodology EQUATOR requires for inclusion in its library.
Related terms and guides
- CONSORT 2010 — the RCT reporting guideline (now superseded in current use by the 2025 revision).
- STROBE — observational studies.
- PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA Flow Diagram — systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
- PRISMA-ScR — scoping reviews.
- ARRIVE 2.0 — in vivo animal research.
- CARE Case Report Guidelines — clinical case reports.
- The EQUATOR Network: Which Reporting Guideline Does Your Study Need? — full routing guide with checklist detail per study type.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a reporting guideline in research?
A checklist, flow diagram, or structured-text tool specifying the minimum information authors must disclose when writing up a specific type of study, so readers, reviewers, and editors can judge what was actually done. The EQUATOR Network is the field’s central library of such guidelines.
Is CONSORT a reporting guideline or a conduct standard?
A reporting guideline. CONSORT governs what a randomized controlled trial write-up must disclose (randomization method, allocation concealment, blinding, participant flow) — it does not govern how the trial itself must be designed or conducted; that is the domain of standards such as ICH GCP.
Do all journals require a reporting guideline checklist at submission?
Many biomedical journals do, particularly for randomized trials (CONSORT), systematic reviews (PRISMA 2020), and observational studies (STROBE), often requiring a completed checklist as a submission file. Requirements vary by journal and field — check the specific journal’s author instructions.
What is the difference between a reporting guideline and a risk-of-bias tool?
A reporting guideline checks whether a manuscript discloses enough detail; a risk-of-bias tool (such as the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools) evaluates the internal validity of how the study was actually conducted. A study can fully satisfy a reporting guideline’s disclosure checklist while still receiving a high risk-of-bias rating for how it was designed or run.
Last verified 2026-08-16 against the EQUATOR Network’s own guideline library and, for the individual guidelines named above, their primary publications (CONSORT 2025: PMC11995449/Nature Medicine 2025;31; STROBE: PLoS Medicine 2007;4(10):e296; PRISMA 2020: BMJ 2021;372:n71; CARE: Journal of Medical Case Reports 2013;7:223; COREQ/SRQR: as indexed by EQUATOR; CONSORT-AI/SPIRIT-AI: BMJ/Nature Medicine/Lancet Digital Health, 2020; TRIPOD+AI: BMJ 2024; DECIDE-AI: Nature Medicine/BMJ 2022).
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="Reporting Guidelines"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/reporting-guidelines" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/reporting-guidelines",
"name": "Reporting Guidelines",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/reporting-guidelines",
"description": "<p><strong>Reporting guidelines</strong> are checklists, flow diagrams, or structured-text tools that specify the minimum set of information authors must include when writing up a specific type of study, so that readers, peer reviewers, and editors can judge what was done and trust that nothing material has been left out. The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network, an international initiative founded in 2006 and based at the University of Oxford's Centre for Statistics in Medicine (NDORMS), is the field's central clearinghouse: it defines a reporting guideline as a checklist, flow diagram, or structured text developed using an explicit, documented consensus methodology to guide authors in reporting a specific type of research, and it maintains a searchable library of several hundred such guidelines spanning study designs, specialties, and report sections.</p><p>A reporting guideline is not a methodological standard. It does not tell an investigator how to design a trial, calculate a sample size, randomize participants, or run an assay -- that is the job of methodological/conduct standards such as ICH Good Clinical Practice, CIOMS guidance, or a funder's data-collection protocol. Nor is a reporting guideline a critical-appraisal or risk-of-bias tool -- it does not score how well a study was conducted (that is the role of instruments such as the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools). A reporting guideline answers a narrower, prior question: <em>given that the study was conducted a particular way, has the write-up disclosed enough about it -- the eligibility criteria, the randomization method, the funding source, the flow of participants -- for a reader to evaluate and, ideally, reproduce the work?</em> An author can follow a reporting guideline to the letter while having run a methodologically weak study, and a well-conducted study can still be reported so incompletely that a reader cannot tell.</p>",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/publishing#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/reporting-guidelines",
"sameAs": [],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"dateModified": "2026-08-17T01:32:53",
"inLanguage": "en"
}
