Jose G Franco Jr., Claudia G Petersen, Laura D Vagnini, Fabiana C Massaro, Bruna Petersen, Andreia Nicoletti, Juliana Ricci, Camila Zamara, Renata A Pouza, Bianca C Matuella, Elisangela V Espirito-Santo, Joao Bosco Meziara, Antonio H Oliani, Joao Batista Oliveira
JBRA Assist. Reprod. - Advanced View
Received August 26, 2026
Accepted August 26, 2026
Abstract
Objective: To develop and pilot-test TRUST-PAPER, a structured framework for evaluating the methodological trustworthiness of individual studies in assisted reproduction, and to examine whether papers published in higher-impact journals receive higher TRUST-PAPER and Practice Change Confidence (PCC-PAPER) scores than papers published in lower-impact journals.
Methods: Forty original studies in assisted reproduction were assessed using the frozen TRUST-PAPER v0.1 RC1 framework and its complementary PCC-PAPER scale. Twenty papers originated from higher-impact journals and 20 from lower-impact journals. Journal-impact group allocation was disclosed only after all paper-level scores had been assigned and frozen. The primary comparison was TRUST-PAPER score between groups; PCC-PAPER and the association between both constructs were secondary analyses.
Results: Mean TRUST-PAPER was 72.15±9.36 in higher-impact journals and 56.00±12.08 in lower-impact journals (mean difference 16.15, 95% CI 9.22-23.08; Welch p=0.000035; Mann-Whitney p=0.000136; Hedges g=1.46). Mean PCC-PAPER was 3.90±1.25 versus 2.20±1.20 (difference 1.70, 95% CI 0.92-2.48; Welch p=0.000088). TRUST-PAPER and PCC-PAPER were strongly but incompletely correlated (Spearman rho=0.868, p<0.001). Score distributions overlapped.
Conclusion: Journal impact was associated with higher average methodological trustworthiness and practice-change confidence, but did not reliably determine the trustworthiness of an individual paper. TRUST-PAPER may complement journal-level prestige metrics by providing an auditable paper-level assessment.
