CONSORT, PRISMA & STROBE Reporting Checklist Review

Why journals ask for reporting items

Editors and reviewers use reporting guidelines to see whether essential methods details are present: randomisation description in trials, search strategy dates in reviews, confounder handling in observational work. Missing items cause delays, major revisions or desk friction even when the science is sound.

Our job is to help you see those gaps in your text and checklist forms — not to invent compliance. If an item cannot be completed because the study did not collect that information, we help you say so clearly rather than fabricating it.

What we do — and what we do not do

We do: map manuscript sections to checklist items; query vague methods wording; suggest where an item belongs (main text vs supplement); help you fill journal checklist uploads from content that already exists; align abstract claims with reported methods via abstract editing when needed.

We do not: re-run statistics; choose primary outcomes retrospectively; pretend a trial was registered if it was not; or replace a biostatistician. If you need language and structure beyond checklists, use manuscript editing, manuscript restructuring or developmental editing.

Guideline families we commonly review against

• CONSORT and extensions — randomised trials.
• PRISMA — systematic reviews and meta-analyses (manuscript reporting; deep review editing is a separate scope).
• STROBE — observational studies.
• CARE and related — case reports, often with case report editing and the free publish a case report guide.
• Other EQUATOR guidelines when you name the design and journal expectation.

Official homes for these statements are linked in Sources. Always prefer the version your target journal names in instructions for authors.

How this sits beside our clinical guides

How-to guides such as publish a clinical trial and publish a systematic review explain the pathway. This service applies checklist discipline to the file you will submit. Indexing targets still need verification via indexing checks and shortlists via journal selection or Scopus publication support.

Ethics, consent and registration

Checklist items often touch ethics approval, consent, trial registration and data availability. We flag absences and point to wording patterns on ethics approval & consent statements. Only you can confirm what was approved. Dishonest checklist answers are refused — see also choosing a publication consultant.

Revisions and reviewer comments

When reviewers cite missing CONSORT/PRISMA items, we help you locate each fix in the revised manuscript and reflect it in the response letter with reviewer response letter editing. Broader revision project management: major revisions response. Desk rejects for incomplete methods: desk rejection reasons.

How a checklist review session usually runs

You send the manuscript and name the guideline (or we propose one from the design). We produce an itemised note: met, partially met, missing, or not applicable — with locations in your file. Partially met items get specific questions (“registration number appears in abstract but not methods”). Missing items that can be completed from existing study records are listed for you to draft; we then edit those additions for clarity. Items that cannot be completed honestly stay marked not applicable or limited, with wording that does not overclaim.

Teams sometimes ask us to “just tick the PDF.” We will not tick boxes that the manuscript does not support. That stance protects you in peer review and matches the ethics line on choosing a publication consultant. If language barriers make methods hard to parse, schedule academic English editing or medical manuscript editing alongside the checklist pass.

Figures, tables and flow diagrams

CONSORT and PRISMA flow diagrams are frequent failure points. We check that numbers reconcile and captions match — detailed figure work via figure & table editing and layout via formatting & referencing.

Process

1. Free assessment: manuscript, design, target journal rules.
2. Written custom quote in GBP (checklist review has no separate approved from-price).
3. Item-by-item review by the On Time Publication Editorial Team.
4. You complete factual gaps; optional bundling with submission support or research paper publication support.

NDA on request. Stripe, PayPal or bank transfer. APCs explained in Scopus publication fees. Open-access routes: open access journal selection. Approved editing rates overall: pricing.

Official sources

• EQUATOR Network
• CONSORT Statement
• PRISMA Statement
• STROBE Statement

We are not affiliated with EQUATOR, CONSORT, PRISMA or STROBE groups. Verify the current statement on the official sites.