jama-cardiology

JAMA Cardiology (jama-cardiology)

Journal positioning

JAMA Cardiology is a JAMA Network specialty journal for cardiovascular clinical

research relevant to the practice of cardiology and cardiovascular medicine. It favors

rigorous, practice-relevant work — randomized cardiovascular trials, large outcomes and

registry analyses, prevention and risk-factor studies, and cardiac imaging studies tied

to clinical outcomes — with JAMA's emphasis on hard endpoints, absolute risk, and

direct relevance to patient care. Mechanistic bench cardiology, small physiology

studies with surrogate-only readouts, and imaging-technique papers with no outcome link

are a weak fit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing aid; it is not

clinical or regulatory advice and does not replace the journal's current instructions

for authors. Before submitting, re-check the live JAMA Cardiology author instructions.

When to trigger

• The author names JAMA Cardiology for a cardiovascular clinical, outcomes, or

imaging-outcome study and wants a fit/framing check.

• A cardiovascular study must be re-framed around a hard clinical endpoint (MACE,

mortality, hospitalization) for a practicing-cardiology audience.

• The author is choosing between JAMA Cardiology, JAMA, and a cardiology-society

journal.

• The author needs the journal's reporting-guideline, registration, and desk-reject

expectations for cardiovascular work.

Scope & topic fit

• Randomized cardiovascular trials (drug, device, procedural, or strategy) with

clinically meaningful endpoints, including pragmatic and de-implementation designs.

• Large outcomes, registry, and claims analyses on cardiovascular events, heart

failure, arrhythmia, and structural/interventional outcomes.

• Cardiovascular prevention, risk-factor, lipid, hypertension, and population

cardiovascular-health studies.

• Cardiac imaging (echo, CMR, CCT, nuclear) studies where the contribution is a

clinical-outcome or prognostic association, not a pure imaging technique.

• Cardiovascular biomarker and risk-prediction studies validated against outcomes.
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses answering a focused cardiovascular question.

Method & evidence bar

• Trials must be adequately powered with a prespecified primary endpoint, ideally a

hard clinical outcome or validated composite (with the composite components reported);

surrogate-only endpoints need strong justification.

• The applicable reporting guideline and checklist are required: CONSORT for trials

(with device/procedure extensions where relevant), STROBE for observational studies,

PRISMA for systematic reviews; risk-model work should follow TRIPOD-style reporting.

• Trials require prospective registration; registration number, protocol, and

statistical-analysis plan are expected, including for device and procedural trials.

• Effect estimates need absolute and relative measures, confidence intervals, adequate

follow-up, and adjudicated endpoints where feasible.

• Registry/observational claims must address confounding by indication, immortal-time

bias, and missing data; causal language must match the design.

• Risk-prediction and biomarker claims need internal and ideally external validation,

calibration, and discrimination metrics.

Structure & house style

• JAMA Network format with a structured abstract and a Key Points box; re-check current

article types (Original Investigation, Brief Report, Research Letter, etc.) and limits

on the live guide.

• The introduction frames a focused, practice-relevant cardiovascular question; the

discussion states the clinical implication and absolute benefit/harm plainly.

• Tables/figures follow JAMA Network statistical-reporting standards; CONSORT/STROBE

flow diagrams, event-free survival curves with numbers at risk, and adjudicated-event

tables are expected where applicable.

• Supplements carry the protocol, SAP, endpoint definitions, and additional analyses.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and

../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the ICMJE and JAMA Network

anchors, then cite the current JAMA Cardiology page you checked.

• Search the live site for "JAMA Cardiology instructions for authors" and follow the

current version.

• Re-check article types and word/reference/table limits, structured-abstract and Key

Points format, and the JAMA Network statistical-reporting requirements.

• Confirm trial registration, the reporting checklist (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA), the

data-sharing statement, and protocol/SAP submission.

• Re-check IRB/ethics and consent statements, ICMJE authorship and conflict-of-interest

disclosure (device/industry ties scrutinized), funding, and AI-use disclosure.

• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions

win.

Pre-submission self-check

• [ ] The study answers a practice-relevant cardiovascular question with a hard or validated clinical endpoint.
• [ ] The primary endpoint is prespecified and adjudicated where feasible; the study is adequately powered.
• [ ] The correct reporting checklist (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/TRIPOD) is completed and attached.
• [ ] Trials are prospectively registered with the number in the manuscript; protocol/SAP provided.
• [ ] Confounding by indication, immortal-time bias, and missing data are addressed; causal language matches the design.
• [ ] IRB/consent, ICMJE disclosures (including device/industry ties), and a data-sharing statement are prepared.

Common desk-reject triggers

• Underpowered trials or surrogate-only physiology studies framed as practice-relevant.
• Imaging-technique papers with no clinical-outcome or prognostic link.
• Registry/observational analyses with confounding by indication or immortal-time bias and overstated causal claims.
• Risk models or biomarkers without validation, calibration, or discrimination reporting.
• Missing trial registration, protocol, endpoint adjudication, or the required reporting checklist.
• Mechanistic/basic cardiology better served by a cardiovascular-science journal.

Re-routing decision

• Broadly practice-changing, top-tier cardiovascular trial → general medicine (jama / NEJM / The Lancet in the natural-science bundle).
• General internal-medicine relevance over cardiology specialty → jama-internal-medicine.
• Cardiac imaging with an imaging-method core over clinical outcome → radiology.
• Cerebrovascular/stroke-specific cardiovascular focus → stroke.
• Surgical/perioperative cardiac focus → jama-surgery.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] JAMA Cardiology
[Specialty tags] <2–3 closest cardiovascular topics>
[Study design / reporting guideline] <RCT-CONSORT / cohort-STROBE / model-TRIPOD / review-PRISMA>
[Method/evidence] <does power, endpoint, registration, and validation clear the bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / registration / checklist / endpoint adjudication / ethics / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>