ESPACOMP Medication Adherence Reporting Guidelines (EMERGE): a reactive-Delphi study protocol

A young woman, just making ends meet and coping with four children, signed up to a breast cancer study where she would have to take two big pills every day...

IntroductionReporting guidelines are important tools for improving the quality of medical research. The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network’s Library contains a comprehensive and up-to-date database...

High-quality and transparent reporting is fundamental to the credibility, reproducibility, and impact of health research. While widely endorsed reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and PRISMA have improved reporting across many fields, traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) research presents distinctive conceptual, methodological, and contextual challenges that are not always adequately addressed by general frameworks. In response, a growing number of TCIM-specific reporting guidelines have been developed over the past two decades. This manuscript provides a structured compendium of all 30 reporting guidelines listed on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network under the clinical area labelled "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" as of March 2026. The compendium summarizes each reporting guideline's scope, study design focus, TCIM modality, relationship to established parent reporting guidelines where applicable, and methodological strengths and weaknesses. The identified reporting guidelines span a wide range of research domains, including randomized trials, protocols, systematic reviews, case reports, case series, clinical practice guidelines, and basic research, and encompass modalities such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, homeopathy, massage, moxibustion, cupping, biofield therapies, and reflexology. By consolidating these resources in a single, accessible overview, this compendium aims to support researchers, journal editors, and peer reviewers in identifying and applying appropriate TCIM-specific reporting guidance, thereby strengthening the transparency, consistency, and overall quality of TCIM research.

BackgroundIn radiology, case reports play an important role in the presentation of a new disease or an unusual form of a common disease using radiological images. Radiology practitioners can refer to the CAse REport (CARE) statement to write and improve the quality of case reports; however, some CARE items are not applicable to the field of radiology. This protocol seeks to describe the methods and processes used to develop CARE extensions for radiology.MethodsWe plan to extend the existing CARE guidelines to radiological case reports. We will follow the steps recommended by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network to develop the CAse Report for Radiology (CARR) statement and checklist for the reporting of case reports. The working group will constitute a multidisciplinary international team of experts, including methodologists, content experts (radiologists and clinicians), journal editors, and possibly consumer representatives. We will discuss and generate a list of initial items based on the CARE statement. Two to three rounds of the Delphi survey will be administered and an online consensus meeting will be held to reach a consensus and develop the final CARR checklist. The full reporting guidelines should be finalized within 1.5 years.DiscussionThe annual number of published radiological case reports has increased over the past 20 years; however, the quality of reporting still needs to be improved. Our protocol envisages the process and methodology for the development of the CARR guidelines, which we anticipate will be available soon and will help radiology practitioners.Trial RegistrationWe have registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network (https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-observational-studies/#CARR)

This article was previously published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2014; 95:415–417, and reproduced here with journal stylistic modifications and appropriate updates to online information citations under the creative commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en_US). With the remarkable growth of disability-related and rehabilitation-related research in the last decade, it is imperative that we support the highest quality research possible. With cuts in research funding, rehabilitation research is now under a microscope like never before, and it is critical that we put our best foot forward. To ensure the quality of the disability and rehabilitation research that is published, the 28 rehabilitation journals simultaneously publishing this editorial (see acknowledgments) have agreed to take a more aggressive stance on the use of reporting guidelines*. Research reports must contain sufficient information to allow readers to understand how a study was designed and conducted, including variable definitions, instruments and other measures, and analytical techniques (Moher et al., 2008). For review articles, systematic or narrative, readers should be informed of the rationale and details behind the literature search strategy. Too often, articles fail to include their standard for inclusion and their criteria for evaluating quality of the studies (Simera et al., 2008). As stated by Doug Altman, co-originator of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and head of the Centre for Statistics in Medicine at Oxford University, ‘Good reporting is not an optional extra: it is an essential component of good research…we all share this obligation and responsibility.’ (Altman, 2008). What are reporting guidelines? Reporting guidelines are documents that assist authors in reporting research methods and findings. They are typically presented as checklists or flow diagrams that lay out the core reporting criteria required to give a clear account of a study’s methods and results. The intent is not just that the authors complete a specific reporting checklist but that they ensure that their articles contain key elements. Reporting guidelines should not be seen as an administrative burden; rather, they are a template on the basis of which authors can construct their articles more completely. Reporting guidelines have been developed for almost every study design. More information on the design, use, and array of reporting guidelines can be found on the website for the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) network (EQUATOR, 2013), an important organization that promotes improvements in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of reporting. Examples include the following: CONSORT for randomized controlled trials (http://www.consort-statement.org); Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies (http://strobe-statement.org/); Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (http://www.prisma-statement.org/); Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) for studies on diagnostic accuracy (http://www.stard-statement.org/); and Case Reports (CARE) for case reports (http://www.care-statement.org/). There is accumulating evidence that the use of reporting guidelines improves the quality of research. Turner et al. (2012) established that the use of the CONSORT statement improved the completeness of reporting in randomized controlled trials. Diagnostic accuracy studies appeared to show improvements in reporting standards when the STARD guidelines were applied (Smidt et al., 2006). Early evidence also suggests that inclusion of reporting standards during peer review raises manuscript quality (Cobo et al., 2011). The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors now encourages all journals to monitor reporting standards and collect associated reporting guideline checklists in the process (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2014). Further, the National Library of Medicine also now actively promotes the use of reporting guidelines (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2013). How will reporting guidelines be integrated into manuscript flow? By 1 January 2015, all of the journals publishing this editorial will have worked through implementation, and the mandatory use of guidelines and checklists will be firmly in place. Because each journal has its unique system for managing submissions, there may be several ways by which these reporting requirements will be integrated into the manuscript flow. Some journals will make adherence to reporting criteria and associated checklists mandatory for all submissions. Other journals may require them only when the article is closer to acceptance for publication. In any case, the onus will be on the author not only to ensure the inclusion of the appropriate reporting criteria but also to document evidence of inclusion through the use of the reporting guideline checklists. Authors should consult the Instructions for Authors of participating journals for more information. We hope that simultaneous implementation of this new reporting requirement will send a strong message to all disability and rehabilitation researchers of the need to adhere to the highest standards when performing and disseminating research. Although we expect that there will be growing pains with this process, we hope that within a short period, researchers will begin to use these guidelines during the design phases of their research, thereby improving their methods. The potential benefits to the authors are obvious: articles are improved through superior reporting of a study’s design and methods and the usefulness of the article to the readers is enhanced. Reporting guidelines also allow for greater transparency in reporting how studies were conducted and can help, hopefully, during the peer review process to expose misleading or selective reporting. Reporting guidelines are an important tool to assist authors in the structural development of a manuscript, eventually allowing an article to realize its full potential. *Physical Therapy, The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, The Journal of Physiotherapy, and The European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine have already successfully required reporting guidelines, one for as many as 10 years. Acknowledgements As this issue went to press, the following Editors agreed to participate in the initiative to mandate reporting guidelines and publish this Position Statement in their respective journals. As a collective group, we encourage others to adopt these guidelines and welcome them to share this editorial with their readerships. Sharon A. Gutman, PhD, OTR (Editor-in-Chief), American Journal of Occupational Therapy; Walter R. Frontera, MD, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Leighton Chan, MD, MPH, and Allen W. Heinemann, PhD (Co-Editors-in-Chief), Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Helene J. Polatajko, PhD, OT(C) (Editor-in-Chief), Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy; Derick T. Wade, MD (Editor-in-Chief), Clinical Rehabilitation; Suzanne McDermott, PhD, and Margaret A. Turk, MD (Co-Editors-in-Chief), Disability and Health Journal; Stefano Negrini, MD (Editor-in-Chief), European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Steven Vogel, DO(Hon) (Editor-in-Chief), The International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine; Črt Marinček, MD, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), International Journal of Rehabilitation Research; M. Solomonow, PhD, MD(hon) (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Electromyography & Kinesiology; Paolo Bonato, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Neuro Engineering and Rehabilitation; Edelle [Edee] Field-Fote, PT, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy; Guy G. Simoneau, PhD, PT (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT); Mark Elkins, PhD, MHSc, BA, BPhty (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Physiotherapy; Stacieann C. Yuhasz, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development; Bengt H. Sjölund, MD, DMSc (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine; Carl G. Mattacola, PhD, ATC (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Sport Rehabilitation; Ann Moore, PhD and Gwendolen Jull, PhD (Co-Editors-in-Chief), Manual Therapy; Randolph J. Nudo, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair; Kathleen Matuska, PhD, OTR/L (Editor-in-Chief), Occupational Therapy Journal of Research: Occupation, Participation, and Health; Ann F Van Sant, PT, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Pediatric Physical Therapy; Greg Carter, MD (Consulting Editor), Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America; Rebecca L. Craik, PT, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Physical Therapy; Dina Brooks, PhD (Scientific Editor), Physiotherapy Canada; Stuart M. Weinstein, MD (Editor-in-Chief), PM&R; Elaine L. Miller, PhD, RN (Editor-in-Chief), Rehabilitation Nursing; Elliot J. Roth, MD (Editor-in-Chief), Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation; Dilşad Sindel, MD (Editor-in-Chief), Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

The reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instrument development is vital for both researchers and clinicians to determine its validity, thus, we propose the Preferred Reporting Items for PRO Instrument Development (PRIPROID) to improve the quality of reports. Abiding by the guidance published by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network, we had performed 6 steps for items development: identified the need for a guideline, performed a literature review, obtained funding for the guideline initiative, identified participants, conducted a Delphi exercise and generated a list of PRIPROID items for consideration at the face-to-face meeting. Twenty three items subheadings under 7 topics were included: title and structured abstract, rationale, objectives, intention, eligibility criteria, conceptual framework, items generation, response options, scoring, times, administrative modes, burden assessment, properties assessment, statistical methods, participants, main results, and additional analysis, summary of evidence, limitations, clinical attentions, and conclusions, item pools or final form, and funding. The PRIPROID contains many elements of the PRO research, and this assists researchers to report their results more accurately and to a certain degree use this instrument to evaluate the quality of the research methods.

BackgroundSeveral hundred core outcome set (COS) projects have been systematically identified to date which, if adopted, ensure that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. The uptake of a COS by COS users will depend in part on the transparency and robustness of the methods used in the COS development study, which would be increased by the use of a standardised protocol. This article describes the development of the COS-STAP (Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items) Statement for the content of a COS development study protocol.MethodsThe COS-STAP Statement was developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network’s methodological framework for guideline development. This included an initial item generation stage, a two-round Delphi survey involving more than 150 participants representing three stakeholder groups (COS developers, journal editors and patient and public involvement researchers interested in COS development), followed by a consensus meeting with eight voting participants.ResultsThe COS-STAP Statement consists of a checklist of 13 items considered essential documentation in a protocol, outlining the scope of the COS, stakeholder involvement, COS development plans and consensus processes.ConclusionsJournal editors and peer reviewers can use the guidance to assess the completeness of a COS development study protocol submitted for publication. By providing guidance for key content, the COS-STAP Statement will enhance the drafting of high-quality protocols and determine how the COS development study will be carried out.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized medical research, offering innovative solutions for data collection, patient engagement, and information dissemination. Powerful generative AI (GenAI) tools and other similar chatbots have emerged, facilitating user interactions with virtual conversational agents. However, the increasing use of GenAI tools in medical research presents challenges, including ethical concerns, data privacy issues, and the potential for generating false content. These issues necessitate standardization of reporting to ensure transparency and scientific rigor. The development of the Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools in Medical Research (GAMER) reporting guidelines aims to establish comprehensive, standardized guidelines for reporting the use of GenAI tools in medical research. The GAMER guidelines are being developed following the methodology recommended by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network, involving a scoping review and expert Delphi consensus. The scoping review searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar (for the first 200 results) using keywords like "generative AI" and "medical research" to identify reporting elements in GenAI-related studies. The Delphi process involves 30-50 experts with ≥3 years of experience in AI applications or medical research, selected based on publication records and expertise across disciplines (eg, clinicians and data scientists) and regions (eg, Asia and Europe). A 7-point-scale survey will establish consensus on checklist items. The testing phase invites authors to apply the GAMER checklist to GenAI-related manuscripts and provide feedback via a questionnaire, while experts assess reliability (κ statistic) and usability (time taken, 7-point Likert scale). The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Health Data Science at Lanzhou University (HDS-202406-01). The GAMER project was launched in July 2023 by the Evidence-Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University and the WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, and it concluded in July 2024. The scoping review was completed in November 2023. The Delphi process was conducted from October 2023 to April 2024. The testing phase began in March 2025 and is ongoing. The expected outcome of the GAMER project is a reporting checklist accompanied by relevant terminology, examples, and explanations to guide stakeholders in better reporting the use of GenAI tools. GAMER aims to guide researchers, reviewers, and editors in the transparent and scientific application of GenAI tools in medical research. By providing a standardized reporting checklist, GAMER seeks to enhance the clarity, completeness, and integrity of research involving GenAI tools, thereby promoting collaboration, comparability, and cumulative knowledge generation in AI-driven health care technologies. DERR1-10.2196/64640.

PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review’s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application.NoteIn order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review’s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application.NoteIn order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Clinical research is a discipline prone to the use of technical terms that may be particularly at risk for misunderstanding given the complex interpretation that is required. In this century,...

Reporting guidelines of Chinese medicine: Current situation and future development

Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy. To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews. Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group. The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted. The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.

With the remarkable growth of disability- and rehabilitation-related research in the last decade, it is imperative that we support the highest quality research possible. With cuts in research funding, rehabilitation research is now under a microscope like never before, and it is critical that we put our best foot forward. To ensure the quality of the disability and rehabilitation research that is published, the 28 rehabilitation journals simultaneously publishing this editorial (see acknowledgments) have agreed to take a more aggressive stance on the use of reporting guidelines.* Research reports must contain sufficient information to allow readers to understand how a study was designed and conducted, including variable definitions, instruments and other measures, and analytical techniques.1 For review articles, systematic or narrative, readers should be informed of the rationale and details behind the literature search strategy. Too often articles fail to include their standard for inclusion and their criteria for evaluating quality of the studies.2 As noted by Doug Altman, co-originator of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and head of the Centre for Statistics in Medicine at Oxford University: “Good reporting is not an optional extra: it is an essential component of good research...we all share this obligation and responsibility.”3 WHAT ARE REPORTING GUIDELINES? Reporting guidelines are documents that assist authors in reporting research methods and findings. They are typically presented as checklists or flow diagrams that lay out the core reporting criteria required to give a clear account of a study's methods and results. The intent is not just that authors complete a specific reporting checklist but that they ensure that their articles contain key elements. Reporting guidelines should not be seen as an administrative burden; rather, they are a template by which an author can construct their articles more completely. Reporting guidelines have been developed for almost every study design. More information on the design, use, and array of reporting guidelines can be found on the website for the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) network,4 an important organization that promotes improvements in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of reporting. Examples include the following: CONSORT for randomized controlled trials (www.consort-statement.org); Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies (http://strobe-statement.org/); Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (www.prisma-statement.org/); Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) for studies of diagnostic accuracy (www.stard-statement.org/); and Case Reports (CARE) for case reports (www.care-statement.org/). There is accumulating evidence that the use of reporting guidelines improves the quality of research. Turner et al5 established that the use of the CONSORT statement improved the completeness of reporting in randomized controlled trials. Diagnostic accuracy studies appeared to show improvement in reporting standards when the STARD guidelines were applied.6 Early evidence also suggests that inclusion of reporting standards during peer review raises manuscript quality.7 The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors now encourages all journals to monitor reporting standards and collect associated reporting guideline checklists in the process.8 Furthermore, the National Library of Medicine also now actively promotes the use of reporting guidelines.9 HOW WILL REPORTING GUIDELINES BE INTEGRATED INTO MANUSCRIPT FLOW? By January 1, 2015, all of the journals publishing this editorial will have worked through implementation and the mandatory use of guidelines and checklists will be firmly in place. Because each journal has its unique system for managing submissions, there may be several ways that these reporting requirements will be integrated into the manuscript flow. Some journals will make adherence to reporting criteria and associated checklists mandatory for all submissions. Other journals may require them only when the article is closer to acceptance for publication. In any case, the onus will be on the author not only to ensure the inclusion of the appropriate reporting criteria but also to document evidence of inclusion through the use of the reporting guideline checklists. Authors should consult the Instructions for Authors of participating journals for more information. We hope that simultaneous implementation of this new reporting requirement will send a strong message to all disability and rehabilitation researchers of the need to adhere to the highest standards when performing and disseminating research. Although we expect that there will be growing pains with this process, we hope that within a short period, researchers will begin to use these guidelines during the design phases of their research, thereby improving their methods. The potential benefits to authors are obvious: articles are improved through superior reporting of a study's design and methods, and the usefulness of the article to readers is enhanced. Reporting guidelines also allow for greater transparency in reporting how studies were conducted and can help, hopefully, during the peer review process to expose misleading or selective reporting. Reporting guidelines are an important tool to assist authors in the structural development of a manuscript, eventually allowing an article to realize its full potential. Leighton Chan, MD, MPH Allen W. Heinemann, PhD Co-Editors-in-Chief Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Jason Roberts, PhD Origin Editorial ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As this issue went to press, the following Editors agreed to participate in the initiative to mandate reporting guidelines and publish this Position Statement in their respective journals. As a collective group, we encourage others to adopt these guidelines and welcome them to share this editorial with their readerships. Sharon A. Gutman, PhD, OTR Editor-in-Chief American Journal of Occupational Therapy Walter R. Frontera, MD, PhD Editor-in-Chief American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Leighton Chan, MD, MPH, and Allen W. Heinemann, PhD Co-Editors-in-Chief Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Helene J. Polatajko, PhD, OT(C) Editor-in-Chief Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy Derick T. Wade, MD Editor-in-Chief Clinical Rehabilitation Suzanne McDermott, PhD, and Margaret A. Turk, MD Co-Editors-in-Chief Disability and Health Journal Stefano Negrini, MD Editor-in-Chief European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Steven Vogel, DO(Hon) Editor-in-Chief The International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine Črt Marinček, MD, PhD Editor-in-Chief International Journal of Rehabilitation Research M. Solomonow, PhD, MD(hon) Editor-in-Chief Journal of Electromyography & Kinesiology Paolo Bonato, PhD Editor-in-Chief Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation Edelle [Edee] Field-Fote, PT, PhD Editor-in-Chief Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy Guy G. Simoneau, PhD, PT Editor-in-Chief Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT) Mark Elkins, PhD, MHSc, BA, BPhty Editor-in-Chief Journal of Physiotherapy Stacieann C. Yuhasz, PhD Editor-in-Chief Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development Bengt H. Sjölund, MD, DMSc Editor-in-Chief Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine Carl G. Mattacola, PhD, ATC Editor-in-Chief Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Ann Moore, PhD and Gwendolen Jull, PhD Co-Editors-in-Chief Manual Therapy Randolph J. Nudo, PhD Editor-in-Chief Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair Kathleen Matuska, PhD, OTR/L Editor-in-Chief Occupational Therapy Journal of Research: Occupation, Participation, and Health Ann F Van Sant, PT, PhD Editor-in-Chief Pediatric Physical Therapy Greg Carter, MD Consulting Editor Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America Rebecca L. Craik, PT, PhD Editor-in-Chief Physical Therapy Dina Brooks, PhD Scientific Editor Physiotherapy Canada Stuart M. Weinstein, MD Editor-in-Chief PM&R Elaine L. Miller, PhD, RN Editor-in-Chief Rehabilitation Nursing Elliot J. Roth, MD Editor-in-Chief Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation Dilşad Sindel, MD Editor-in-Chief Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Burnout and Working Status of Anesthesiologists in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau Area of China