jama-cardiology

name	jama-cardiology
description	Use when targeting JAMA Cardiology or deciding whether a cardiovascular-medicine study fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the cardiovascular-trial and outcomes evidence bar, reporting-guideline and trial-registration requirements, JAMA Network house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics. Venue-fit aid only, not clinical advice.

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>