# Reporting-guideline router

Always verify the current official checklist before final compliance claims.

| Study design | Likely guideline | High-risk checks |
|---|---|---|
| Randomized trial | CONSORT | registration, allocation, blinding, sample size, participant flow, harms |
| Trial protocol | SPIRIT | prespecified outcomes, interventions, analysis, monitoring, amendments |
| Systematic review/meta-analysis | PRISMA | protocol, databases, full strategies, screening, exclusions, bias, synthesis |
| Observational study | STROBE | design, setting, participants, variables, bias, missing data, adjusted estimates |
| Animal study | ARRIVE | ethics, design, sample size, inclusion/exclusion, randomization, blinding |
| Case report | CARE | timeline, diagnostic reasoning, intervention, outcomes, consent |
| Diagnostic accuracy | STARD | participants, index test, reference standard, flow, indeterminate results |
| Prediction model | TRIPOD | data, outcome/predictors, sample size, missing data, validation, performance |

## Workflow

1. Identify study design from methods, not title alone.
2. Confirm the guideline version and official checklist.
3. Build an item-level matrix: item, manuscript location, evidence, status, required edit.
4. Distinguish `NOT_APPLICABLE` from `MISSING`; justify both.
5. Do not invent registration numbers, approvals, dates, participant counts, or analysis details.
6. Report compliance as item-level findings, not a vague percentage alone.

## Output

| Item | Requirement | Manuscript evidence/location | Status | Required action |
|---|---|---|---|---|

Status: `MET`, `PARTIAL`, `MISSING`, `NOT_APPLICABLE`, or `UNVERIFIED_VERSION`.

