Submissions

Author Guidelines

Authors are invited to make a submission to this journal. All submissions will be assessed by an editor to determine whether they meet the aims and scope of this journal. Those considered to be a good fit will be sent for peer review before determining whether they will be accepted or rejected.

Before making a submission, authors are responsible for obtaining permission to publish any material included with the submission, such as photos, documents and datasets. All authors identified on the submission must consent to be identified as an author. Where appropriate, research should be approved by an appropriate ethics committee in accordance with the legal requirements of the study's country.

An editor may desk reject a submission if it does not meet minimum standards of quality. Before submitting, please ensure that the study design and research argument are structured and articulated properly. The title should be concise and the abstract should be able to stand on its own. This will increase the likelihood of reviewers agreeing to review the paper. When you're satisfied that your submission meets this standard, please follow the checklist below to prepare your submission.

Submission Preparation Checklist

Submission Guidelines

Original Reports – present data that have not yet been published.

Word limit: 3,000 words (max), excluding abstract and references
Abstract: Must be structured under the sub-headings: Objective(s), Methods, Results, Conclusion
References: 75 references (max)
Figures/Tables: Total of 8 figures and tables (max)

Original Reports should be formatted as follows:

Abstract
Keywords
Level of Evidence
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Systematic Reviews – Present clinical topics and answers a specific, hypothesis based research question that is supported by significant literature and data sources obtained through a comprehensive search of the medical literature.

These systematic reviews should be focused and follow the standard format as delineated in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) document, or MOOSE (Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. The PRISMA document(s) can be found at http://www.prisma-statement.org/. Please note that there are extensions for Individual patient data (IPD) and Network meta-analyses (NMA) that may be applicable depending on the type of data available and the comparisons being made. The explanation for MOOSE can be found at: http://www.consort-statement.org/Media/Default/Downloads/Other%20Instruments/MOOSE%20Statement%202000.pdf.

Please note that there is a difference between a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic review is the manuscript type that includes the methods of literature search, critical appraisal, and synthesis of data from multiple selected studies to answer a research question, which preferably includes meta-analyses of quantitative data. A meta-analysis is the statistical method only (which may or may not be applied depending on the availability of appropriate data); it is not a manuscript type.

In brief, Systematic Reviews should include the following:

Description of the focused research question, using the PICOS (Participant, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design) criteria
Critical appraisal of prior reviews on the topic
Explicit description of the electronic search strategy and databases used (at least 3), including Mesh titles, dates of inclusion, and the names of those performing the search
Report of the results of the search, the studies screened, and the studies included
Explicit description of selection criteria for inclusion in the final review
State the primary outcome variable
Report the statistical methods used for data analysis and synthesis
Extract and report the key outcomes and findings from each study
Synthesize the data into a summary analysis, including forest plots if a meta-analysis is performed, and an analysis of heterogeneity
Perform a risk of bias analysis and discuss the risks of bias across studies. Please note that this is separate and distinct from the Levels of Evidence (https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence)
Summarize the results of the data synthesis and analysis
Provide an overall interpretation of the results, in the context of the published literature
In order to confirm a submission contains all the required systematic review elements, authors must complete the following checklist. The completed checklist must then be uploaded with other manuscript files when completing submission.

Abstract (250 words) with the headings: Objective, Data Sources, Review Methods, Results, and Conclusion
Key Words
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Acknowledgment (grants and research report)
References

Word count: 4000 words maximum (not including abstract)
Figures/Tables: Total of 8 figures and tables. Must include a flow diagram and a table describing all included studies.

Multi-paneled figures will be counted as multiple figures.
Tables with > 6 columns will be counted as multiple tables.

Scoping Reviews – clinical or translational topics with emerging literature and data sources. They are a type of review that may be appropriate when there is insufficient data for a true systematic review. Scoping reviews do not address a specific, hypothesis – based research questions like systematic literature reviews do. The role of the scoping review is to identify gaps in knowledge, summarize the state of the current literature, clarify definitions/concepts, but not to make recommendations or conclusions that affect clinical care. A scoping review is not meant to serve as a shortened systematic review without data analysis.

We recommend reading the following publication for more information about scoping reviews before submitting: Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology (2018) 18:143. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.pdf

Word count: 3000 words (introduction – conclusion)
Figures/Tables: No more than a total of 8 figures and tables

Multi-paneled figures will be counted as multiple figures
Tables with > 6 columns will be counted as multiple tables.

Best Practice

Word count: 1,100 words (max)

References: 5 (max)

Table or Figure (recommended): 1 (max)

Description: Manuscripts are concise reviews providing an answer to a pertinent clinical question. Manuscripts in this category are commissioned by invitation only. Please forward any topic proposals to the Managing Editor at richard_f_puls@rush.edu

Triological Society Best Practice manuscripts should be formatted as follows:

Background: State the controversy succinctly.

Literature Review: Recent published data addressing the question should be briefly reviewed.

Best Practice Summary: One or two sentences summarizing the answer to the question based on current knowledge. Additionally, when appropriate, a sentence regarding a gap in knowledge or future direction of research may also be included.

Level of Evidence: Summary of level of evidence of cited literature in 1–2 sentences

Case Report – describe encounters with one or several patients with unique or unusual clinical situations and identify a clinical pearl/wisdom that could benefit future patients.

Word count: 1,000 words (max)

References: 5 (max)

Figures/Tables: No more than a total of 5 figures and tables

Case Reports should be formatted as follows:

Keywords

Introduction

Case Report

Discussion

Conclusion

References

Articles

Section default policy

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.