A comparison of handsearching versus MEDLINE searching to identify reports of randomized controlled trials. Full publication of trials initially reported as abstracts in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine 1980-2000. Identification of randomized controlled trials from the emergency medicine literature: comparison of hand searching versus MEDLINE searching. Abstracts of trials presented at the Vth World Congress of Psychiatry (Mexico, 1971): a cohort study. Handsearching the Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service for Trials. Handsearching the Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps for trials. Prevalence study of the randomized controlled trials in the Journal of Intellectual Disability Research: 1957-1994. Quality assessment of reports on clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology. Publication bias and meta-analyses: a practical example. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias. Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search. Developing a database of published reports of randomised clinical trials in pain research. The quest for trials on the efficacy of human vaccines. Results of the handsearch of Vaccine. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. Editorial policy and the reporting of randomized controlled trials: a survey of instructions for authors and assessment of trial reports in Indian medical journals (2004-05). Time to publication as full reports of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in cystic fibrosis. Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and use of structured abstracts. Are leading medical journals following their own policies on CONSORT reporting? Identification and analysis of randomised controlled trials in nursing: a preliminary study. The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. Forty years of randomised trials in the New Zealand Medical Journal.
This study aims to compare handsearching to a basic MEDLINE search for the identification of reports of randomized trials in specialized health care journals. Twenty-two specialized health care journals, published in the U.K., were handsearched for all reports of controlled trials (as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration). The reports of trials, which were judged to be definitely randomized, were identified from a random sample of three years per journal and form one element of this study. A MEDLINE search using the publication type terms 'randomized controlled trial' and 'controlled clinical trial' was also performed for the same journal years. The reports of trials retrieved by handsearching were then compared against those retrieved from the MEDLINE search, to identify differences in retrieval between the two techniques. Reports of randomized trials identified by the MEDLINE search but not found by handsearching were individually assessed to see if they met the Cochrane eligibility criteria for a report of a randomized trial. A total of 714 reports of randomized trials were found by using a combination of both handsearching and MEDLINE searching. Of these, 369 (52 per cent) were identified only by handsearching and 32 (4 per cent) were identified only by MEDLINE searching. Of the reports identified only by handsearching, 252 had no MEDLINE record, of which 232 (92 per cent) were meeting abstracts or published in supplements; 117 (25 per cent) of the 462 reports of randomized trials which had a MEDLINE record were missed by the electronic search because they did not have either of the publication type terms 'randomized controlled trial' or 'controlled clinical trial'. This proportion varied depending on when the reports of randomized trials were published (that is, before or after the introduction of the MEDLINE publication type terms above). The highest additional yield from handsearching compared to MEDLINE searching was for reports of randomized trials published prior to 1991 and from handsearching the non-MEDLINE indexed parts of a journal. The results of this study suggest that a combination of MEDLINE and handsearching is required to identify adequately reports of randomized trials.
                Copyright Crown copyright 2002. Reproduced with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Abstract Failure to identify all relevant reports of controlled trials is a potential source of bias in systematic reviews of health-care interventions. The present study aims to identify how many reports of trials -initially published as conference abstracts in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine were subsequently published in full. We identified trial reports by handsearching conference abstracts published in the Journal from 1980 to 2000. We then searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and PubMed to determine how many of these had been subsequently published in full. A total of 962 reports of controlled trials was identified from the conference proceedings of 17 medical societies. Of these, 589 (61%) reports of trials were subsequently published in full, and on average within 1-2 years. Handsearching conference abstracts identified a large number of reports of controlled trials, over one-third of which were unpublished and therefore not easily accessible. As part of an ongoing project to identify all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the emergency medicine literature, in association with the Cochrane Collaboration, 2 discrete studies were undertaken; the first, to compare motives for active participation in hand searching of the literature by emergency medicine professionals, and the second, to compare hand searching with MEDLINE searching of a number of emergency medicine journals.
                All listed members of the British Association for Emergency Medicine (BAEM) and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) received a standard letter outlining the objectives of the project, with 1 of 3 headings assigned on an alternate basis. Recruited volunteers hand searched journals prioritized from the emergency medicine literature. Each issue of each journal was hand searched for RCTs. In addition, a comprehensive MEDLINE search was conducted for each journal. The yields of RCTs from the 2 searching methods were compared for all journals and for each journal individually.
                No clear motivation for participation in this work could be ascertained because of the low response rates from BAEM and SAEM (10.1% and 1.8%, respectively). Only 18 (29.0%) of the 62 journals identified were indexed by MEDLINE. In the 14 journals indexed by MEDLINE for which hand searching was completed, a total of 710 RCTs were identified by a combination of the 2 approaches; of these, 592 (83.4%) were identified by hand searching alone and 483 (68.0%) by MEDLINE searching alone. Both methods identified 365 (51. 4%) RCTs; hand searching revealed an additional 227 (32.0%) that were not identified by MEDLINE searching, and MEDLINE searching found 118 (16.6%) that were not identified by hand searching. The difference between the proportions identified by hand searching and by MEDLINE searching (15.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7% to 17.9%) was statistically significant (McNemar's chi2 test, 1 df, 33. 8; P <.0001). This difference was not significant for 8 of the journals.
                The response rates from mailing to members of the relevant professional organizations letters requesting participation in this work were very low and suggested that such an approach was not cost-effective. However, no formal costing exercise was undertaken. Searching results showed that, in the 14 emergency medicine journals indexed by MEDLINE for which hand searching was completed, hand searching led to identification of additional RCTs (primary articles) not found through MEDLINE searching. However, hand searching, although statistically significantly better than MEDLINE searching, failed to identify some of the RCTs found by MEDLINE searching, suggesting that hand searching is not a "gold standard" method and that the dual approach, promoted by the Cochrane Collaboration, may be the optimal approach for journals indexed by MEDLINE. Systematic reviews should identify all relevant trials in order to minimize the potential for bias and the play of chance in their results. Other specialities have shown that conference proceedings are a rich source of trials, but many of these trials are never fully published.
                All clinical trials presented at a single conference (Vth World Congress of Psychiatry, Mexico, 1971) were identified by hand searching. Full publications of these abstracts were then sought on five databases by searching for the authors or relevant key words.
                Full publications were found for 46% of the abstracts. The odds of publication decreased for abstracts that were from a non-Anglophone country or that failed to mention randomization.
                Anyone wishing to undertake a systematic review of a mental-health care topic should search relevant conference proceedings for trials. As part of the Cochrane Collaboration's international research endeavour, the authors carried out a handsearch of the Journal of the Royal Naval Medical Service from 1948 to 1998, searching for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Five trials were identified, of which three were RCTs and two were CCTs. The first trial was published in 1960. The identified trials were in the fields of dentistry (two trials), gastroenterology, occupational medicine and orthopaedic surgery. Of the five trials, only two had been located previously through a rigorous interrogation of Medline. The three newly identified trials were reported to the UK Cochrane Centre, and details of these three trials were entered into Medline for use by clinicians and investigators in the future. As part of the Cochrane Collaboration's international research endeavour, the authors carried out a handsearch of the RAMC Journal from 1948 to 1998, searching for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Ten trials were identified, of which 6 were RCTs and 4 were CCTs. The first trial was published in 1967. Four of the 10 identified trials were in the field of respiratory medicine, and 2 were in obstetrics and gynaecology. Of the 10 trials, only 3 had been found through a rigorous interrogation of Medline. The 7 newly identified trials were reported to the UK Cochrane Centre, and summary details of these trials were entered into Medline for use by clinicians and investigators in the future. Systematic reviews of care are increasingly potent guides to clinical practice, and it is important that all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are identified by those within the speciality of learning disability who produce such works. All RCTs in the Journal of Intellectual Disability Research and its predecessor were identified by hand-searching (1957-1994), and the frequency, origin, intervention and quality of reporting of randomization were described. Electronic searches for the trials were undertaken for the years 1974-1994, and the quality of indexing was inspected and tested. These electronic searches were then compared to a 'gold standard' search. Fifty-six RCTs were identified. None contained the world 'randomized' in the title and only nine mentioned it in the abstract. Out of the 37 RCTs published between 1974 and 1994, 36 are in PsycLIT and 37 in MEDLINE. One MEDLINE record contained the wrong abstract. The methodological phrases used in the electronic records were poor, and thus, the precision of electronic searches, using both databases, was low. This international journal contains many relevant RCTs from around the world, involving several types of interventions. Unfortunately, these trials cannot be readily accessed electronically using methodological phrases designed to find RCTs. Improved quality of indexing would facilitate identification of RCTs and their dissemination. Electronic searches on databases for randomised clinical trials and controlled clinical trials do not identify as many trials as handsearches, and trial reporting may be flawed. The aims were to identify all fully reported randomised clinical trials in the Journal of Hepatology and to make a qualitative assessment of the reporting.
                The publications were identified by systematically handsearching the full text of the journal and searching MEDLINE. Central dimensions of trial quality were used to assess the reporting quality of the trials.
                Randomised clinical trials represented 8.4% of the original articles (171/2028). Ten original articles (0.5%) could not be classified. A search on MEDLINE identified 81.3% of the randomised clinical trials, i.e., 139 out of the 171 identified by the handsearch. A total of 166 randomised clinical trials could be quality assessed. Forty-seven (28.3%) of them reported adequate generation of allocation sequence; 22 (13.3%) adequate allocation concealment; 95 (57.2%) allowed intention-to-treat analysis with only a few losses to follow-up; 50 (30.1%) were double-blind; 33 (19.9%) reported sample-size calculations; 13 trials (7.8%) employed the crossover design; and the median number of subjects per intervention arm in parallel group trials was 19 subjects (interquartile range: 11-31; range: 5-519). The quality of reporting was significantly better in regular issue articles than in supplement articles.
                Many important randomised clinical trials are published in the Journal of Hepatology, but there seems to be ample room for improvement of quality of reporting. Publication bias is widely appreciated, but considerable time and effort are needed to locate and obtain data from unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), those published in non-English language journals or those reported in the gray literature; for this publication, we will call this collection of trials the "gray+literature." However, excluding such trials from systematic reviews could introduce bias and give rise to misleading conclusions.
                We aimed to explore and quantify the impact of inclusion of gray+ literature on the results of all completed individual patient data (IPD) reviews coordinated by our group (13 meta-analyses). For each IPD review, results were calculated for RCTs fully published in English language journals and RCTs fully published in English language journals and the gray+literature.
                The IPD meta-analyses based only on RCTs that were fully published in English language journals tended to give more favorable results than those that included RCTs from the gray+literature. Although in most cases the addition of gray+data gave less encouraging results, moving the estimated treatment effect toward a null result, the direction of effect was not always predictable.
                We recommend that all systematic reviews should at least attempt to identify trials reported in the gray+literature and, where possible, obtain data from them. Large clinical trials are the criterion standard for making treatment decisions, and nonpublication of the results of such trials can lead to bias in the literature and contribute to inappropriate medical decisions.
                To determine the rate of full publication of large randomized trials presented at annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), quantify bias against publishing nonsignificant results, and identify factors associated with time to publication.
                Survey of 510 abstracts from large (sample size, > or =200), phase 3, randomized controlled trials presented at ASCO meetings between 1989 and 1998. Trial results were classified as significant (P< or =.05 for the primary outcome measure) or nonsignificant (P>.05 or not reported), and the type of presentation and sponsorship were identified. Subsequent full publication was identified using a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE, completed November 1, 2001; the search was updated in November 2002, using the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Authors were contacted if the searches did not find evidence of publication.
                Publication rate at 5 years; time from presentation to full publication.
                Of 510 randomized trials, 26% were not published in full within 5 years after presentation at the meeting. Eighty-one percent of the studies with significant results had been published by this time compared with 68% of the studies with nonsignificant results (P<.001). Studies with oral or plenary presentation were published sooner than those not presented (P =.002), and studies with pharmaceutical sponsorship were published sooner than studies with cooperative group sponsorship or studies for which sponsorship was not specified (P =.02). These factors remained significant in a multivariable model. The most frequent reason cited by authors for not publishing was lack of time, funds, or other resources.
                A substantial number of large phase 3 trials presented at an international oncology meeting remain unpublished 5 years after presentation. Bias against publishing nonsignificant results is a problem even for large randomized trials. Nonpublication breaks the contract that investigators make with trial participants, funding agencies, and ethics boards. Publication bias toward studies that favor new therapies has been known to occur for the past 40 years, yet its implications are not well studied in child health. The increased interest in meta-analyses has highlighted the need to identify the totality of evidence when addressing treatment questions.
                To measure the percentage of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at a major pediatric scientific meeting that were subsequently published as full-length articles, to investigate factors associated with publication, and to describe the variables that change from abstract to manuscript form.
                The scientific proceedings from the Society for Pediatric Research were hand searched for RCTs (1992-1995). Subsequent publication was ascertained through a search of various electronic databases. Quality of abstracts and manuscripts was measured, and data were extracted using a structured form.
                A total of 264 (59.1%) of 447 abstracts were subsequently published. Almost 64% of RCTs that were subsequently published favored new therapy compared with 43.5% of studies that were never published (P<.001). Mean effect size for published vs unpublished RCTs was 0.74 vs 0.05 (P<.001). Median sample size was larger in published (n = 45) vs unpublished (n = 34) RCTs (P =.02). Quality was significantly lower for abstracts vs published RCTs (P<.001). For 5% of abstracts that were subsequently published, the conclusion regarding treatment efficacy changed.
                Publication bias is a serious threat to assessing the effectiveness of interventions in child health, as little more than half of RCTs presented at a major scientific meeting are subsequently published. There is a need to institute an international registry of RCTs in children so that the totality of evidence can be accessed when assessing treatment effectiveness. To evaluate the sensitivity and precision of various extended search methods in identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews.
                Prospective analysis of extended search methods (specialized databases or trial registries, reference lists, hand-searching, personal communication, and Internet) used in two systematic reviews of RCTs. The gold standard was the total number of RCTs identified by major databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, etc.) and extended search strategies combined. Sensitivity was the proportion of all known RCTs identified by any extended search method. Precision reflected the proportion of all items uncovered by any extended search method that actually were RCTs.
                The extended search identified 94 additional RCTs for the systematic reviews beyond those identified with the major databases. Specialized databases and trial registries had the highest sensitivity and precision for the lipid-lowering project (13.6% and 52.7%, respectively; p < .05) followed by scanning of reference lists (7.2% sensitivity and 41.9% precision; p <.05). Hand-searching was more effective than personal communication and Internet searching (1.7% sensitivity and 12.2% precision; p < .05). The acupuncture project had slightly different results, with the specialized databases and trial registries tied with the review of reference lists for highest sensitivity (14.2%). The precision followed the same trend as the lipid-lowering project (17.6% specialized databases; 8.3% reference lists; p < .05). A post-hoc analysis showed that 75 of the 94 RCTs were indexed in the major databases but missed by the major database search.
                Extended searching identified additional RCTs for the systematic reviews beyond those found in major databases. Specialized databases and trial registries were most effective. An important number of RCTs were missed by the major database search. Timing and accuracy of indexing may explain this finding. The definitive measure, whether there is an association between the method used to uncover RCTs, the quality of the items uncovered and their impact on systematic review results, is yet to be determined. A database of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research published from 1950 to 1990 was created following an extensive literature search. By applying a refined MEDLINE search strategy from 1966 to 1990 and by hand-searching more than 1,000,000 pages of a total of 40 biomedical journals published during the period 1950-1990, more than 8000 RCTs were identified. The RCTs were published in more than 800 journals and over 85% appeared between 1976 and 1990. If the trend of the last 15 years persists, a total of more than 15 000 RCTs will be published in pain relief by the year 2000. A detailed description of methods to ensure efficient use of resources during the identification, retrieval and management of the information in pain relief and other fields is given. Emphasis is made on the importance of refining MEDLINE search strategies, on the use of volunteers to hand-search journals and on careful monitoring of each of the steps of the process. The potential uses of the database to guide clinical and research decisions are discussed. We report the results of the handsearch of all the issues of Vaccine from 1983 to 1994 to identify randomized and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) with the aim of setting up a Cochrane data base of vaccine trials. We read 1119 original papers and located 231 trials of which 117 (50.6%) were RCTs and 114 (49.4%) were CCTs. This compared with a MEDLINE search yield of only 60 trials (25.9% of reports identified by handsearching). Hepatitis B vaccine was the most popular topic (25.5% of trial reports), followed by influenza (13.4% of trial reports) and Hepatitis A (10.4% of trial reports). Seventy per cent of trials had been carried out in Europe or North America and mean overall trial size was 1136 patients (median 110). Overall only 20 trial reports mentioned placebo explicitly, while 22 reports contained data on both overall and arm size which could not be reconciled. Reviewers of vaccine trials should not base searches exclusively on MEDLINE as they are likely to miss up to 75% of trial reports. Vaccine should adopt a standardized format of reporting of trials and contributors should conform to these rules. As of 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors required investigators to register their trials prior to participant enrollment as a precondition for publishing the trial's findings in member journals.
                To assess the proportion of registered trials with results recently published in journals with high impact factors; to compare the primary outcomes specified in trial registries with those reported in the published articles; and to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favored significant outcomes.
                MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 3 medical areas (cardiology, rheumatology, and gastroenterology) indexed in 2008 in the 10 general medical journals and specialty journals with the highest impact factors.
                For each included article, we obtained the trial registration information using a standardized data extraction form.
                Of the 323 included trials, 147 (45.5%) were adequately registered (ie, registered before the end of the trial, with the primary outcome clearly specified). Trial registration was lacking for 89 published reports (27.6%), 45 trials (13.9%) were registered after the completion of the study, 39 (12%) were registered with no or an unclear description of the primary outcome, and 3 (0.9%) were registered after the completion of the study and had an unclear description of the primary outcome. Among articles with trials adequately registered, 31% (46 of 147) showed some evidence of discrepancies between the outcomes registered and the outcomes published. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in only half of them and in these statistically significant results were favored in 82.6% (19 of 23).
                Comparison of the primary outcomes of RCTs registered with their subsequent publication indicated that selective outcome reporting is prevalent. Many international journals require authors of randomized controlled trials to adhere to standards of reporting described in the statement of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the requirements issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). We examined the extent to which these international standards have been adopted by Indian medical journals.
                To identify Indian medical journals that publish randomized controlled trials, we did electronic searches of the websites of the National Informatics Centre (Indian Medlars Centre), Database of Open Access Journals, National Library of Medicine, WHO's Index Medicus for the South-East Asian region and Google. We analysed their instructions to authors for endorsement of the CONSORT statement and the ICMJE requirements for reporting of randomized controlled trials. We then identified all randomized controlled trials published in these journals during 2004 and 2005 and assessed them against selected CONSORT items and ICMJE requirements, and scored them on the Jadad scale.
                Of the 65 journals selected, 38 (58.5%) mentioned the ICMJE requirements in their instructions for authors but only 20 (31%) specifically required authors to submit manuscripts in accordance with the CONSORT statement. Of 151 randomized controlled trials published during 2004-05, only 4 of 13 (30.8%) selected CONSORT items were reported in > 50% of trial reports. Items reflecting internal validity were poorly reported. Jadad scores were significantly higher for general medical journals compared with specialty journals (mean difference 0.46; 95% CI: 0.15-0.78; p = 0.005) and in trials published in 2005 over those published in 2004 (mean difference 0.48; 95% CI: 0.18-0.79; p = 0.002). Ethical issues were poorly reported in one-third of reports, and sources of funding and conflicts of interest were not declared in over three-fourths. Adequacy of reporting was not related to endorsing either the CONSORT statement or the ICMJE requirements.
                Medical journals published in India should adopt internationally recognized norms for reporting clinical trials and work with authors, reviewers and institutional review boards to improve the standards of conduct, reporting and validity of inferences of trials. To determine 1) what proportion of abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) presented at international conferences on cystic fibrosis (CF) are published as full reports, 2) time to publication, and 3) factors that might delay or prevent publication.
                At the end of 1995, the Cochrane CF Group's register of RCTs contained 199 abstracts describing 180 RCTs. Abstracts were identified by handsearching 44 abstract books of three international CF conferences over a 30-year period. We searched the register for subsequent full reports of these RCTs and used survival analysis to investigate time to publication. Using the log-rank test, we examined 1) whether there is a difference in time to publication between reports where the investigators concluded that the test treatment was as effective as or better than the control treatment, and reports where it was not, and 2) whether there is a difference in time to publication according to sample size.
                Thirty-two percent of the 178 abstracts analyzed were subsequently published in full. Survival analysis indicated that the proportions published before 12 months, 2 years, and 5 years were 8.1%, 29%, and 40% respectively. No difference in time to publication was identified when the abstracts were stratified according to conclusions or sample size; no significant association (P > 0.05) existed between time to publication and both sample size and conclusions together.
                Only a small proportion of abstracts of RCTs presented at international conferences on CF are followed by full publication, and usually only after several years. Therefore, many potentially valuable studies do not reach a wide audience. However, we found no consistent factors which might delay or prevent publication. Structured abstracts, that is, abstracts that describe a study using requisite content headings, provide more informative content. Concomitant reporting in the text of the report might improve with structured abstract use because of increased awareness by authors or editors of important study areas associated with content headings.
                To assess whether structured abstract use is associated with improved reporting of randomized clinical trials.
                Survey of trial reports published the year preceding, of, and following new use of structured abstracts, found by hand searching Archives of Ophthalmology (1992-1994) and Ophthalmology (1991-1993), as well as trial reports published concurrently without change in abstract format (American Journal of Ophthalmology, 1991-1994).
                We measured the inclusion of 56 criteria derived from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) descriptors (JAMA 1996;276:637-639) in the text of each report and calculated the number of criteria included per report and the proportion of reports including individual criteria. Reports with structured abstracts were compared with those without, and reports published in 1993 and 1994 in the American Journal of Ophthalmology were compared with those published in 1991 and 1992.
                The mean (SEM) number of criteria included by authors was 15.8 (0.4) per report in 125 trial reports. We found no difference in the mean number of criteria included or the proportion of reports that included specific criteria by journal. Following structured abstract use, there was no difference in either the mean number of criteria per report or the proportion of reports including a majority of criteria within each CONSORT subheading. Four criteria were included more often and 2 less often following structured abstract use in individual journals.
                Using CONSORT descriptor criteria to evaluate reporting quality, we found no difference in text reporting associated with structured abstract use in the journals examined. The revised Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement recognizes the importance of including data so that readers are able to judge the reliability or relevance of randomized controlled trial (RCT) findings. However, it is unclear whether journals consistently report the pre-randomization information necessary to assess the general applicability of trial results. The objective of this study was to assess the extent of adherence to pre-randomization data reporting in 4 leading general medicine journals, as recommended by the revised CONSORT statement over a specific time frame. A total of 480 RCTs met the eligibility criteria for review. In 2004, 138 of 246 (56%) articles reported the full CONSORT pre-randomization information, of which 121 (88%) presented this information in diagram form. In 2006, 136 of 234 (58%) reported the full information, of which 127 (93%) presented the information in a diagram. These numbers indicate no improvement in the reporting of pre-randomization information. In conclusion, reporting of the full CONSORT data remains inconsistent. We recommend that journals continue to support the CONSORT statement and ensure that adequate information is provided upon submission before commencing the peer review process. The presentation of clear, precise data will ensure that readers are able to better interpret the applicability of findings. To describe preliminary work undertaken for development of a nursing contribution to the Cochrane Collaboration. To ascertain whether there are randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on nursing care which need to be identified for inclusion in systematic reviews of the effects of health care.
                Searches by Medline (1966-94) and by hand of 11 nursing research journals from inception to the end of 1994 to identify RCTs and systematic reviews; and a comparison of searches by hand and by Medline for three nursing research journals.
                Total number of RCTs identified and number of RCTs published in nursing journals; the sensitivity of Medline searches; and aspects of nursing care evaluated by RCT.
                The work is ongoing and 522 reports of RCTs and 20 systematic reviews of effectiveness have been identified so far. The sensitivity of Medline searches for RCTs in nursing journals is as low as 36% for one journal and the lack of reference to research design in the title or abstract was the main reason for the lack of sensitivity.
                There are RCTs that evaluate aspects of nursing care, and are published in nursing and non-nursing journals, and are largely undertaken by nurses. These must be reviewed in ongoing systematic reviews of the effects of health care (including those undertaken as part of the Cochrane Collaboration). Nursing journals must be hand searched to identify these studies as the lack of reference to study design in the titles and abstracts of nursing trials leads to poor indexing in electronic databases such as Medline. The "Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials" (CONSORT) was developed to improve the suboptimal reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, little is known about the quality of reporting since this publication. We undertook an observational study to determine the quality of reporting key methodological factors in RCTs since the publication of the CONSORT statement and if a journal policy to promote adherence to the CONSORT checklist was associated with superior reporting. We recorded the reporting of 11 key methodological factors in 105 RCTs from 29 medical journals published subsequent to the CONSORT statement. We examined the quality of reporting in relation to whether a journal was a "CONSORT promoter" as defined by inclusion of the CONSORT checklist in a journal's "information to authors" section or a requirement that authors, manuscript reviewers, or copy editors complete the CONSORT checklist. Multivariate analysis controlled for journal impact factor, study outcome, and time of publication. Six of the 11 methodological factors were reported <50% of the time. The number of methodological factors reported was greater in CONSORT promoters than in journals not promoting CONSORT in both unadjusted (6.0 and 5.1, respectively, p-value = 0.03) and adjusted (6.4 and 4.8 of the 11 methodological factors, respectively, p-value = 0.0001) analyses. While journals that promote CONSORT demonstrate superior reporting of RCTs, persistent inadequacies in reporting remain. Until these inadequacies are resolved health-care providers will remain limited in their ability to make informed inferences about the validity of the studies upon which they base their clinical practice. Selective reporting of outcomes within published studies based on the nature or direction of their results has been widely suspected, but direct evidence of such bias is currently limited to case reports.
                To study empirically the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a cohort of randomized trials.
                Cohort study using protocols and published reports of randomized trials approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committees for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, Denmark, in 1994-1995. The number and characteristics of reported and unreported trial outcomes were recorded from protocols, journal articles, and a survey of trialists. An outcome was considered incompletely reported if insufficient data were presented in the published articles for meta-analysis. Odds ratios relating the completeness of outcome reporting to statistical significance were calculated for each trial and then pooled to provide an overall estimate of bias. Protocols and published articles were also compared to identify discrepancies in primary outcomes.
                Completeness of reporting of efficacy and harm outcomes and of statistically significant vs nonsignificant outcomes; consistency between primary outcomes defined in the most recent protocols and those defined in published articles.
                One hundred two trials with 122 published journal articles and 3736 outcomes were identified. Overall, 50% of efficacy and 65% of harm outcomes per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared with nonsignificant outcomes for both efficacy (pooled odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0) and harm (pooled odds ratio, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.8-12.0) data. In comparing published articles with protocols, 62% of trials had at least 1 primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. Eighty-six percent of survey responders (42/49) denied the existence of unreported outcomes despite clear evidence to the contrary.
                The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols. Published articles, as well as reviews that incorporate them, may therefore be unreliable and overestimate the benefits of an intervention. To ensure transparency, planned trials should be registered and protocols should be made publicly available prior to trial completion. To identify all randomised trials published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, to document the basic characteristics of these trials and to count the number that were detectable on medline.
                All issues of the New Zealand Medical Journal between 1943 and 1995 were systematically hand-searched. All trials identified were characterised and compared against the trials identified using an optimal medline search strategy.
                The handsearch identified 152 randomised controlled trials, the first published in 1955. Half the trials recruited less than 34 participants and more than 90% were of pharmaceutical interventions. Only 18% of studies reported on the method of randomisation and 13% provided evidence that final analyses were conducted on an intention to treat basis. Fifty one percent of trials employed a placebo control group and 28% involved a crossover design. Since 1966, when Medline became available, 143 trials were published of which 89 (62%) were identified by the Medline search.
                Two of the major difficulties that face those preparing systematic reviews were illustrated by this survey. First, important information on design and analysis is often missing from reports of trials. Second, a large proportion of published randomised trials are not identifiable on Medline. Standard formats for reporting the results of trials and inclusion of trials identified by hand-searching on the Cochrane Collaboration's International Register of Randomised Controlled Trials of Health Care will facilitate the future production of reliable systematic reviews.
Handsearching still has a valuable role to play in identifying reports of randomized trials for inclusion in systematic reviews of health care interventions, particularly in identifying trials reported as abstracts, letters and those published in languages other than English, together with all reports published in journals not indexed in electronic databases. However, where time and resources are limited, searching an electronic database using a complex search (or the Cochrane HSSS) will identify the majority of trials published as full reports in English language journals, provided, of course, that the relevant journals have been indexed in the database.