Skip to content
MDThesis

Free tool · no sign-up

Which reporting guideline does your study need?

Answer one to three questions about your study. The finder names the guideline that applies, what it asks you to report, the extensions worth checking and the paper to cite. Nothing you choose is sent or stored.

Open the finderSee all 15 in a table

The instrument

Answer up to three questions

Most studies need one answer; a few need a second or third. The result names the guideline, what it asks you to report, the extensions to check and the paper to cite.

Question 1

What kind of study is it?

Choose the design of the study you are writing up, or planning.

Choose your study type and the guideline appears here.

The register

Every guideline the finder can recommend

Study type, guideline, current version and official source, each checked on 1 October 2026.

The table is wider than your screen. Scroll it sideways to see every column

Reporting guidelines by study type, with current version and sourceSources checked 1 October 2026
Study typeGuidelineCurrent versionSource
Randomised trial: the resultsCONSORT 2025Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials2025 (published April 2025)Replaces CONSORT 2010
Randomised trial: the protocolSPIRIT 2025Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials2025 (published April 2025)Replaces SPIRIT 2013
Observational study: cohort, case-control or cross-sectionalSTROBEStrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology2007
Observational study using routinely collected health dataRECORDREporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data2015
Diagnostic accuracy studySTARD 2015Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies2015Replaces STARD 2003
Prediction model: development, validation or updatingTRIPOD+AITransparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis2024Replaces TRIPOD 2015
Systematic review, with or without meta-analysisPRISMA 2020Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses2020 (published 2021)Replaces PRISMA 2009
Systematic review: the protocolPRISMA-P 2015Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols2015
Scoping review or evidence mapPRISMA-ScRPRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews2018
Case reportCARECAse REport guidelines2013
Qualitative study: interviews or focus groupsCOREQConsolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research2007
Qualitative study: any approachSRQRStandards for Reporting Qualitative Research2014
Quality improvement projectSQUIRE 2.0Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence2.0 (published 2015)Replaces SQUIRE 1.0 (2008)
Health economic evaluationCHEERS 2022Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards2022Replaces CHEERS 2013
Animal research (in vivo)ARRIVE 2.0Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments2.0 (2020)Replaces ARRIVE (2010)

In a thesis or a manuscript

How to use the guideline once you have it

  1. Name it in your methods, and cite it

    One sentence is enough, for example that the study is reported following STROBE, with the statement paper in your references. The finder gives the paper to cite for each guideline, and so does the reference list at the foot of this page.

  2. Work through the checklist while you write

    Not after. Note against each item the page or section where it is reported. An item you cannot point to is easier to add while the draft is still open than after a reviewer has asked for it.

  3. Include the flow diagram where the guideline asks for one

    CONSORT, STARD and PRISMA each include a flow diagram, and STROBE suggests considering one. It shows how many participants, or records, were assessed, included, lost and analysed.

  4. Expect the journal to ask for it

    Many journals ask for the completed checklist at submission, and some name the guideline and version in their author instructions. Read those first: where they differ from anything here, theirs is the requirement.

A thesis is not a journal article, and your university's format decides how it is laid out. The checklist still tells you what your methods and results have to contain, and an examiner reading them is asking the same questions a journal reviewer would.

Read this too

What the finder does not do

  • It does not replace your instructions. Where your journal, your university or your ethics committee names a guideline, a version or a format, theirs governs.
  • Some studies need more than one guideline. An observational study of routinely collected data uses STROBE and RECORD together; a trial with an economic evaluation alongside it uses CONSORT and CHEERS; a trial of an intervention that involves artificial intelligence uses CONSORT and CONSORT-AI.
  • It covers 15 guidelines, not all of them. The EQUATOR Network library (opens in a new tab) listed 708 reporting guidelines on 1 October 2026, including ones for designs and specialties not covered here. If your design is not in the finder, search the library.
  • It does not check your manuscript. Choosing the right guideline is not the same as meeting it; that is the work of going through the checklist item by item.
  • Versions change. CONSORT and SPIRIT were both updated in 2025. The versions here were checked on 1 October 2026; the official sites are the authority.

Sources

The statement papers and official sources

The paper to cite for each guideline, with its official site or library entry. Sources checked 1 October 2026.

  1. [1]

    CONSORT 2025. Hopewell S, Chan AW, Collins GS, et al. CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. BMJ. 2025. doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081123 (opens in a new tab)

    CONSORT–SPIRIT website (official) (opens in a new tab) · EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  2. [2]

    SPIRIT 2025. Chan AW, Boutron I, Hopewell S, et al. SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials. BMJ. 2025. doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081477 (opens in a new tab)

    CONSORT–SPIRIT website (official) (opens in a new tab) · EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  3. [3]

    STROBE. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e296. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 (opens in a new tab)

    STROBE website (official) (opens in a new tab) · EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  4. [4]

    RECORD. Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, et al. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001885. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885 (opens in a new tab)

    RECORD website (official) (opens in a new tab) · EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  5. [5]

    STARD 2015. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527. doi:10.1136/bmj.h5527 (opens in a new tab)

    EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  6. [6]

    TRIPOD+AI. Collins GS, Moons KGM, Dhiman P, et al. TRIPOD+AI statement: updated guidance for reporting clinical prediction models that use regression or machine learning methods. BMJ. 2024;385:e078378. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-078378 (opens in a new tab)

    TRIPOD website (official) (opens in a new tab) · EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  7. [7]

    PRISMA 2020. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 (opens in a new tab)

    PRISMA website (official) (opens in a new tab) · EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  8. [8]

    PRISMA-P 2015. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 (opens in a new tab)

    PRISMA website (official) (opens in a new tab) · EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  9. [9]

    PRISMA-ScR. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467-473. doi:10.7326/M18-0850 (opens in a new tab)

    PRISMA website (official) (opens in a new tab) · EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  10. [10]

    CARE. Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, et al. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. BMJ Case Rep. 2013. doi:10.1136/bcr-2013-201554 (opens in a new tab)

    CARE website (official) (opens in a new tab) · EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  11. [11]

    COREQ. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 (opens in a new tab)

    EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  12. [12]

    SRQR. O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 (opens in a new tab)

    EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  13. [13]

    SQUIRE 2.0. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, Batalden P, Davidoff F, Stevens D. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(12):986-992. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411 (opens in a new tab)

    EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  14. [14]

    CHEERS 2022. Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. BMJ. 2022;376:e067975. doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-067975 (opens in a new tab)

    EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

  15. [15]

    ARRIVE 2.0. Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7):e3000410. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 (opens in a new tab)

    ARRIVE website (official) (opens in a new tab) · EQUATOR Network library entry (opens in a new tab)

The full library: EQUATOR Network, reporting guidelines (opens in a new tab).

Free · no account needed

Picked a guideline? Have the design behind it checked.

A free methodology review: tell us about the study you are planning or writing up, and we look at the design, the guideline and what your methods have to state, then tell you plainly what to do next.

WhatsApp us +91 97803 01305
  • Reply within 1 working day
  • You stay the author
  • Private and safe

Your free assessment

Takes less than a minute.

Free. A specialist replies within one working day.

Document: Reporting guideline finder · Revision 1 · Last reviewed

Issued by MDThesis, a brand of REDENN Informatics Private Limited