Research Data Code and Reporting Standards

Clinical Medicine and Pharmacology expects authors to explain how the evidence behind a clinical claim can be examined. The goal is a transparent account of the data, methods and analytical decisions, while respecting patient consent, confidentiality and legitimate restrictions. A statement that data are available is not sufficient if the proposed route cannot be used in practice.

Data availability statement

Every research article, including an evidence review, includes a statement describing the data supporting its principal findings. When data are publicly available, provide the repository, persistent identifier and applicable access terms. When access is restricted, explain the reason, identify the body considering requests and describe the conditions under which access may be granted. For third party data, identify the source and the route other researchers may use. A paper that generates no new data should say so and identify any analysed sources.

Protecting health information

Authors must not deposit identifiable health records merely to satisfy an openness requirement. Deidentification should take account of small cohorts, rare conditions, linked datasets and information in images. Controlled access, secure analysis environments or aggregate material may be appropriate. Restrictions should be specific and proportionate; commercial inconvenience or an unexplained statement of privacy is not enough to assess what is genuinely unavailable.

Methods and analytical materials

Describe eligibility criteria, recruitment, sample size reasoning, outcome definitions, follow up, exclusions, missingness and handling of multiple analyses. Report effect sizes and uncertainty where appropriate, not only statistical significance. State software names and versions and provide code, codebooks, model specifications and essential parameters when these support reproducibility. Distinguish prespecified analyses from exploratory analyses and make departures from a registered plan visible.

Reporting by study design

Authors identify and use the reporting guideline appropriate to the actual study design. Randomised trials follow CONSORT 2025 and relevant extensions; trial protocols use SPIRIT 2025. Observational studies use STROBE, systematic reviews PRISMA 2020, case reports CARE and animal studies ARRIVE 2.0 where applicable. Diagnostic accuracy reports use STARD and, for applicable AI systems, STARD-AI; prediction-model studies use TRIPOD+AI and the relevant extensions. Submit a completed checklist with manuscript page references and the applicable flow diagram. A reporting checklist supports transparent assessment but cannot repair an inadequate design, replace ethics approval or validate an unsupported clinical claim.

Editorial access and continued availability

Editors may request underlying evidence or a secure explanation of its provenance during review or an integrity inquiry. Authors should retain research records for the period required by their institution, funder and applicable rules and explain any inability to provide requested material. They remain responsible for keeping promised repository links and access arrangements functional. Failure to provide evidence is assessed in context and may prevent a claim from being verified without automatically proving misconduct. Questions or supporting documents should be sent through the CMP editorial office at cmpeditorialoffice@jandoopress.com, identifying the manuscript number or article DOI where available.

Last updated: 17 September 2026