A reporting guideline lists what a report of one kind of study must contain, so a reader can judge it and someone else could repeat it. For student research, it is a ready-made list of what the methods and results must not leave out.
This guide, published by EdCitation, covers which guideline fits which design, what the main ten ask for, who requires them, and how to cite them. Each was read at its own site or in its statement paper on 26 September 2026. EdCitation's free Cite a source builds every guideline's reference from its DOI; it looks the record up and never writes any part of your dissertation. The chapters have their own guides: methodology, quantitative results and qualitative findings.
What is a reporting guideline, and what is the EQUATOR Network?
A reporting guideline is a checklist, flow diagram or structured text, developed by an explicit method, that sets out what a paper of one research type should report (EQUATOR Network, n.d.-b). It guides writing. It does not tell you how to run the study, and it is not a quality score: Logullo et al. (2020), from the UK EQUATOR Centre, argue that turning checklists into scoring forms misuses them.
The EQUATOR Network keeps the library: 707 reporting guidelines on the day we read it, with a short table for the main study types (EQUATOR Network, n.d.-a). A student project almost always needs one of the ten below.
They make a difference. Walsh et al. (2020) scored 197 qualitative papers from 115 nursing journals against COREQ: reporting was moderate in 57% and poor in 38%, and journals that endorsed a qualitative reporting guideline published better-reported papers.
Which reporting guideline fits my study design?
The one for the design your methods chapter names. The table follows EQUATOR's list of main study types.
| Design | Guideline | What it covers | Canonical citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Randomised controlled trial | CONSORT 2025 | 30 items and a participant flow diagram | Hopewell et al. (2025), BMJ, 389, e081123 |
| Cohort, case-control or cross-sectional study | STROBE | 22 items, 18 common to all three designs | von Elm et al. (2007), PLoS Medicine, 4(10), e296 |
| Systematic review | PRISMA 2020 | 27 items, an abstract checklist, flow diagrams | Page et al. (2021), BMJ, 372, n71 |
| Scoping review | PRISMA-ScR | 20 essential items, 2 optional | Tricco et al. (2018), Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7) |
| Qualitative research, any approach | SRQR | 21 items | O'Brien et al. (2014), Academic Medicine, 89(9) |
| Interviews and focus groups | COREQ | 32 items in three domains | Tong et al. (2007), International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6) |
| Diagnostic accuracy study | STARD 2015 | 30 items and a participant flow diagram | Bossuyt et al. (2015), BMJ, 351, h5527 |
| Case report | CARE | 13 items, a timeline among them | Gagnier et al. (2013), BMJ Case Reports |
| Quality improvement project | SQUIRE 2.0 | 18 items | Ogrinc et al. (2016), BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12) |
| Animal research | ARRIVE 2.0 | The Essential 10 and a Recommended Set of 11 | Percie du Sert et al. (2020), PLOS Biology, 18(7) |
| Any of these, as a reference | Cite a source, free | Builds the entry from its DOI | Screened for retraction |
When two guidelines could apply
COREQ was built for interviews and focus groups (Tong et al., 2007), SRQR for every qualitative approach (O'Brien et al., 2014); JAMA accepts either (JAMA, n.d.). A mixed-methods project reports each strand to its own guideline; choosing a research method covers naming the design.
When no guideline fits exactly
Search EQUATOR for an extension, then use the nearest guideline and say which items do not apply; SQUIRE's own notes accept that not every item belongs in every paper (Ogrinc et al., 2016).
What does each checklist ask for, beyond the table?
What a reader needs, not how good the study was.
The version you follow
CONSORT 2025 supersedes CONSORT 2010, "which should no longer be used" (Hopewell et al., 2025), and adds items on data sharing, patient and public involvement, harms and missing data, with a new open science section. PRISMA 2020 replaces PRISMA 2009, and guides the reporting of a review, not its conduct (Page et al., 2021); see how to do a systematic review and how to do a scoping review.
The less familiar ones
STROBE has four design-specific items, so download the checklist for your design (von Elm et al., 2007). CARE runs from patient information through a timeline and follow-up to the patient's own perspective and informed consent (Gagnier et al., 2013). SQUIRE 2.0 centres on the theory behind an improvement, its context and the study of the intervention (Ogrinc et al., 2016). ARRIVE 2.0 makes its Essential 10 the minimum (Percie du Sert et al., 2020).
Which have a flow diagram
CONSORT, PRISMA and STARD. CONSORT's counts, for each group, those randomised, given the intervention and analysed, with losses and reasons (Hopewell et al., 2025, item 22); PRISMA's counts records from identification to inclusion, in four templates; STARD 2015 expects one in every report (Bossuyt et al., 2015). A dissertation short of a full systematic review can adapt PRISMA's: the University of Derby Library (2026) calls it adaptable and says to log results by database from the first search, and the University of Hull Library (2026) gives nursing students a template with it drawn.
How do I use a reporting guideline while writing a dissertation?
As a plan while drafting and a check before submitting. Tompson (2017) reports that Oxford's Evidence-Based Health Care MSc supervisors expect students to follow their design's guideline throughout the write-up and take subheadings from it.
- Name your design, then find its guideline and current version on EQUATOR or the guideline's site.
- Download the checklist and its explanation and elaboration paper.
- Draft the methods and results under headings in the checklist's order.
- Keep the flow diagram's numbers from the first search or the first person screened.
- Before submitting, note where each item is reported, or write "not applicable" with the reason.
- Attach the completed checklist as an appendix if your handbook, supervisor or journal asks.
- Cite the guideline in the methods, built from its DOI in Cite a source.
- Run the list through Verify references before the draft goes to your supervisor.
What a completed checklist looks like
The blank checklist with a column saying where each item is; several journals require one (Logullo et al., 2020), and the University of Colorado Colorado Springs (2020) prints SQUIRE 2.0 in its DNP handbook with a column for page and line numbers. Give the chapter as well as the page.
Which universities and journals require a reporting guideline?
No regulation read for this guide requires one for every dissertation; health programmes and journals often do.
| Where | What it asks |
|---|---|
| University of Oxford, MSc in Evidence-Based Health Care | Refer to your design's guideline throughout the write-up (Tompson, 2017) |
| University of Colorado Colorado Springs, DNP | The project paper written using SQUIRE for its headings and content |
| University of Colorado College of Nursing, DNP | A paper rubric based on IMRaD and SQUIRE (University of Colorado College of Nursing, 2021) |
| University of Hull, nursing dissertation | A template with the PRISMA flow diagram ready for the numbers |
| JAMA | EQUATOR guidelines; a CONSORT flow diagram and completed checklist for trials; a completed PRISMA checklist and flow diagram for systematic reviews |
| PLOS ONE | A completed PRISMA checklist and flow diagram as supporting information; CONSORT, STROBE and STARD for their designs (PLOS ONE, n.d.) |
A dissertation that may become a paper should follow the target journal's guideline now; see how to write a journal article.
How do I cite a reporting guideline correctly?
Cite the statement paper, in the version you used, with the year it was published. The PRISMA site asks for its journal articles rather than the website (PRISMA, n.d.), and SQUIRE asks to be cited whenever it was used. Four traps:
- The name is not the year. PRISMA 2020 was published in 2021.
- Superseded versions. Cite CONSORT 2010 or PRISMA 2009 only if you really reported to it.
- One statement, several journals. CONSORT 2025 appeared at once in The BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, Nature Medicine and PLOS Medicine. Cite the one copy you read.
- Group authors. STROBE, CONSORT 2010 and CARE end their bylines with a group, as in "for the STROBE Initiative"; Cite a source keeps it as the last author. APA's pages could not be read today to confirm the rule, so keep the group unless told otherwise.
What Cite a source built, and what to correct
We ran Cite a source on 11 guideline DOIs on 26 September 2026, and again on 27 September 2026. Eight came back ready to paste in APA 7: CONSORT 2025 (39 authors, cut to the first 19 and the last, as APA 7 does), PRISMA 2020, STARD 2015, ARRIVE 2.0, SQUIRE 2.0, PRISMA-ScR, SRQR and COREQ. The publishers deposited PRISMA-ScR's and SRQR's titles in title case, and Cite a source set them in sentence case, as APA 7 wants for article titles. COREQ came back as:
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Three needed a correction:
- STROBE: the initiative's name was lowered with the rest of the title, "The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement"; give Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology its capitals back, in the Vancouver entry too.
- CONSORT 2010: "Statement" kept its capital, as the record gives it; lower it.
- CARE: the article number came without the word "Article".
Handbooks need the same check. The UCCS handbook's own SQUIRE reference has "Orgrinc" for Ogrinc, "for a detailed consensus process" where the title says "from", and no issue or DOI (University of Colorado Colorado Springs, 2020).
How EdCitation helps with reporting guidelines
EdCitation is the best tool for a guideline's reference, because it builds each one from the publisher's record instead of writing it, and every trap above is a fact of that record: PRISMA 2020's year, CONSORT 2025's 39 authors, the group closing STROBE's byline. A chatbot can produce a plausible entry; Cite a source reads the record from Crossref, free with no account, in APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago 18 author-date, Harvard, IEEE and Vancouver, and screens each source for retraction.
Verify references, free, took the 11 statements as one list, with PRISMA 2020 dated 2020 on purpose. Ten came back verified and one "check this": "The work was published in 2021, not 2020; the record has no date in 2020." None was retracted or carried a correction notice. It flags retraction, not replacement: CONSORT 2010 came back verified, so check versions on the guideline's site. A reference it cannot check is shown as "could not check", never as not found.
Find sources searches about 300 million published works, showing how others reported. "Adherence to the COREQ checklist in published qualitative studies", by citations, returned 4,339,351 works: COREQ first, cited 37,528 times, then a 2021 JAMA Surgery guide to SRQR and COREQ, with Walsh et al. (2020) seventh; "adherence" also pulled in medication studies. A second search surfaced Prosen (2022), a study that states it used COREQ though its data came from questionnaires and drawings, not interviews: check the fit, not only the name.
Check your paper, free, reads a handbook's instructions into a checklist. References from a file matches every citation in the uploaded dissertation to the list, three checks a month free and unlimited on Pro ($8 a month), which also brings Mechanics QA. Max ($24 a month, see pricing) adds Theoretics QA, which judges the dissertation against the handbook and rewrites nothing. None of these fills in a checklist or writes any part of a dissertation, and none can promise a mark.
Quick questions
Do I have to follow a reporting guideline in my dissertation?
Only if your handbook or supervisor says so, but it quickly shows what your methods and results leave out.
Should a qualitative dissertation use COREQ or SRQR?
COREQ for interview and focus group studies, SRQR for qualitative research of any design. JAMA accepts either.
What year do I put for PRISMA 2020?
2021, the year the PRISMA 2020 statement was published (Page et al., 2021). EdCitation's Verify references flags an entry dated 2020.
Should I cite CONSORT 2010 or CONSORT 2025?
CONSORT 2025, which its authors say supersedes the 2010 statement (Hopewell et al., 2025), unless your study really was reported to 2010.
Can EdCitation fill in my reporting checklist?
No. Cite a source builds the reference and Verify references checks the list; reporting each item is your work.
References
- Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., Kressel, H. Y., Rifai, N., Golub, R. M., Altman, D. G., Hooft, L., Korevaar, D. A., & Cohen, J. F. (2015). STARD 2015: An updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ, 351, Article h5527. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h5527
- EQUATOR Network. (n.d.-a). Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. https://www.equator-network.org/
- EQUATOR Network. (n.d.-b). What is a reporting guideline? https://www.equator-network.org/about-us/what-is-a-reporting-guideline/
- Gagnier, J. J., Kienle, G., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Sox, H., Riley, D., & CARE Group. (2013). The CARE guidelines: Consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. BMJ Case Reports, 2013, Article bcr2013201554. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2013-201554
- Hopewell, S., Chan, A.-W., Collins, G. S., Hróbjartsson, A., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Tunn, R., Aggarwal, R., Berkwits, M., Berlin, J. A., Bhandari, N., Butcher, N. J., Campbell, M. K., Chidebe, R. C. W., Elbourne, D., Farmer, A., Fergusson, D. A., Golub, R. M., Goodman, S. N., … Boutron, I. (2025). CONSORT 2025 statement: Updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. BMJ, 389, Article e081123. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-081123
- JAMA. (n.d.). Instructions for authors. JAMA Network. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/pages/instructions-for-authors
- Logullo, P., MacCarthy, A., Kirtley, S., & Collins, G. S. (2020). Reporting guideline checklists are not quality evaluation forms: They are guidance for writing. Health Science Reports, 3(2), Article e165. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.165
- O'Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
- Ogrinc, G., Davies, L., Goodman, D., Batalden, P., Davidoff, F., & Stevens, D. (2016). SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): Revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Quality & Safety, 25(12), 986–992. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004411
- Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
- Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., Garner, P., Holgate, S. T., Howells, D. W., Karp, N. A., Lazic, S. E., Lidster, K., MacCallum, C. J., Macleod, M., … Würbel, H. (2020). The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLOS Biology, 18(7), Article e3000410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410
- PLOS ONE. (n.d.). Best practices in research reporting. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting
- PRISMA. (n.d.). Citing PRISMA 2020. https://www.prisma-statement.org/citing-prisma-2020
- Prosen, M. (2022). Nursing students' perception of gender-defined roles in nursing: A qualitative descriptive study. BMC Nursing, 21, Article 104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-022-00876-4
- Tompson, A. (2017, March 21). Ten steps to producing a well-written evidence-based health care dissertation. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/systematic-reviews/ten-steps-to-producing-a-well-written-evidence-based-health-care-dissertation
- Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
- Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., … Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
- University of Colorado College of Nursing. (2021). Scholarly project paper grading rubric: NURS 8030, 8040, 8050 [PDF]. https://nursing.cuanschutz.edu/docs/librariesprovider2/program-documents/dnp-toolkit/dnp-scholarly-paper-rubric83cd63e5302864d9a5bfff0a001ce385.pdf
- University of Colorado Colorado Springs. (2020). DNP project handbook [PDF]. Helen and Arthur E. Johnson Beth-El College of Nursing and Health Sciences. https://johnsonbethel.uccs.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/DoctorofNursingPracticeHandbook-5.29.20-FINAL.pdf
- University of Derby Library. (2026, September 11). PRISMA flow diagram. https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/develop-at-derby/literature-reviews/prisma-lr
- University of Hull Library. (2026, July 24). Nursing: Your dissertation template. https://libguides.hull.ac.uk/integrated/nursingdissertation
- von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & STROBE Initiative. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Medicine, 4(10), Article e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
- Walsh, S., Jones, M., Bressington, D., McKenna, L., Brown, E., Terhaag, S., Shrestha, M., Al-Ghareeb, A., & Gray, R. (2020). Adherence to COREQ reporting guidelines for qualitative research: A scientometric study in nursing social science. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, Article 1609406920982145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920982145