A reporting guideline checker saves the slowest part of submission: going through a checklist item by item and finding where the manuscript reports each one. The guideline check in the Reviewer does that against ten guidelines listed by the EQUATOR Network, including CONSORT, STROBE, STARD, SAGER and SAMPL. For every item it quotes the passage that reports it, or says it is missing, partly reported or needs checking by hand. You finish the draft checklist and submit the official one.
What it does
| Guideline | Version | For |
|---|---|---|
| CONSORT | 2010 | Randomized controlled trials (CONSORT 2025 also exists; see the FAQ) |
| STROBE | 2007 | Observational studies: cohort, case-control, cross-sectional |
| PRISMA | 2020 | Systematic reviews and meta-analyses |
| CARE | 2013 | Case reports |
| STARD | 2015 | Diagnostic accuracy studies |
| COREQ | 2007 | Qualitative interviews and focus groups |
| SRQR | 2014 | Qualitative research, any method |
| SQUIRE | 2.0 | Quality improvement and clinical audit reports |
| SAGER | 2016 | Sex and gender reporting, as an add-on |
| SAMPL | 2013 | Basic statistical reporting, as an add-on |
Each item gets one of five results:
- Reported: the passage that reports it is quoted, with where it was found.
- Partly reported: the passage is quoted, with what is missing.
- Missing: no passage was found, with a note on what to add.
- Not applicable: the item does not fit the study.
- Check by hand: the check could not decide; you look.
The items are paraphrased from the published checklists and keep their published numbers, so "STROBE 12d" in the result is item 12d on the official form. A link to each official checklist sits next to the result.
The check suggests a guideline from your text. A paper that reads like a diagnostic accuracy study gets STARD suggested; a paper that reports sex differences, or a lot of statistics with no recognized design, gets SAGER or SAMPL suggested.
Which guideline fits your study
The EQUATOR Network lists hundreds of reporting guidelines , but most manuscripts need one of a few. Match the guideline to the design of the study, not to the topic.
| Your study | Guideline to check |
|---|---|
| A randomized trial | CONSORT 2010 |
| A cohort, case-control or cross-sectional study | STROBE 2007 |
| A systematic review, with or without meta-analysis | PRISMA 2020 |
| A case report | CARE 2013 |
| A study of a diagnostic test's accuracy | STARD 2015 |
| Interviews or focus groups | COREQ 2007, or SRQR 2014 for other qualitative methods |
| A quality improvement project or clinical audit | SQUIRE 2.0 |
| Any of the above that involves people, animals or cells | Add SAGER for sex and gender |
| Any of the above that reports statistics | Add SAMPL for statistical reporting |
If your journal names a guideline in its author instructions, use that one.
How it works, step by step
- Open the Reviewer and choose the guideline check (the route is /reviewer?module=guidelines).
- Upload the manuscript (Word or PDF), pick a document you already have, or paste the whole text from the title to the funding statement.
- Pick the guideline, or accept the one marked Suggested. SAGER and SAMPL are marked Add-on.
- Check the credit cost shown next to the button, and press Check against the guideline.
- Read the summary and the counts for each result. The list opens on To fix: the items that are partly reported, missing or need checking by hand.
- Press CSV with a page column to download the checklist with an empty "Page or line" column, ready to fill in, or Open checklist in editor to finish it there.
A worked example
Example (invented for illustration): a registrar has a 5,200-word cohort study on early mobilization after hip surgery that reports outcomes separately for men and women.
- She uploads the Word file. STROBE 2007 is suggested. Cost: 5 credits.
- Most items are reported with quoted passages. Item 12d (loss to follow-up) is partly reported: dropouts are counted but their handling in the analysis is not described. The sample size item is missing. Two items are marked Check by hand.
- She runs SAGER as a second check: 5 credits. It flags that the methods do not say how sex was determined.
- She fixes the text, downloads the STROBE CSV, adds page numbers, and copies them into the journal's official form.
Total: 10 credits, inside the Free plan's 45 a month.
What it does not do
- It does not guarantee compliance or acceptance. It drafts the checklist; the author confirms every item.
- It does not fill in page numbers. Page and line numbers depend on your submission file, so the CSV leaves that column for you.
- It does not judge the quality of the study. A reported item can still describe a weak method; for a critique, use the AI peer review in the Reviewer.
- It does not check CONSORT 2025 or guideline extensions (for example CONSORT for cluster trials). Use the official checklists for those.
- It does not check your references. The citation checker does that, for 2 credits.
For blank, copyable checklists, including PRISMA 2020, see the reporting checklists template. Systematic reviewers can run the review and build its PRISMA flow diagram in the Systematic Review workspace.
Who uses it
- Clinicians and health researchers submitting to medical journals: see AI for medicine and medicine and health research.
- PhD students turning a thesis chapter into a paper: see AI for PhD students.
- Academics and supervisors checking a draft before it goes out: see AI for academics.
- Qualitative researchers reporting against COREQ or SRQR, including those who code their interviews with qualitative coding in Workbooks.
Running the study itself? The clinical research checklists cover the IRB submission, the site initiation visit and ClinicalTrials.gov results.
Learn more
- The SAGER guidelines: reporting sex and gender
- The SAMPL guidelines: basic statistical reporting
- How to make a PRISMA flow diagram
- Levels of evidence and study types
Last updated 2026-11-13