EQUATOR Guidelines: How to Choose the Right Reporting Guideline Before You Write

Before structuring a manuscript, an abstract, or a congress poster, there is a decision too often made after writing, when it should be made before: which reporting guideline matches the study design. The EQUATOR Network defines a reporting guideline as a checklist, flow diagram, or structured text that guides authors in reporting a specific type of research, developed using explicit methodology ^[1].

The usefulness of these guidelines isn't bureaucratic. The EQUATOR Network documents that hundreds of reporting guidelines exist and that choosing the right one can seem difficult, which is why it developed tools — like a flowchart and an online decision aid — to make that selection easier based on study type: systematic review, randomized trial, observational study, and others ^[2]. CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, and STARD are among the most recognized guidelines, each designed for a different study design.

An analysis of editorial adoption of these guidelines documents that journals such as Neurosurgery and Medicine have required completed checklists alongside the manuscript for more than a decade, aligning each article type with its corresponding guideline ^[3]. The same analysis clarifies a point that often generates pushback from authors: checklist items aren't meant to increase workload — they're meant to confirm that the manuscript's essential elements are present ^[3].

The most common mistake isn't being unaware these guidelines exist — it's consulting them late, after drafting the first version, when restructuring the manuscript to meet the checklist takes more work than having designed it that way from the start. Verifying the guideline that matches the study type, along with the specific requirements of the target journal or event, should be the first step of the writing process, not a final check before submission.