Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. 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. The impact of the CONSORT statement on reporting of randomized clinical trials in psychiatry. Are leading medical journals following their own policies on CONSORT reporting? Application of the CONSORT statement to randomized controlled trials comparing endoscopic and open carpal tunnel release. Quality of reports on randomized controlled trials conducted in Japan: evaluation of adherence to the CONSORT statement. Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals. Analysis of the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in acute and chronic myeloid leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndromes as governed by the CONSORT statement. Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. Improving the quality of reporting alcohol outcome studies: effects of the CONSORT statement. The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Of consents and CONSORTs: reporting ethics, law, and human rights in RCTs involving monitored overdose of healthy volunteers pre and post the "CONSORT" guidelines. Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in paediatric dentistry journals. Improving the quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine, part IV: applying a revised CONSORT checklist to measure reporting quality. Systematic review of symptom control and quality of life in studies on chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: how CONSORTed are the data? Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in polycystic ovary syndrome. Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review. Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility. Randomized clinical trials behind level A recommendations in obstetric practice bulletins: compliance with CONSORT statement. What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of 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). Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine: a survey of 13 randomly selected journals from mainland China. Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation. Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the primary treatment of brain tumors. Undisclosed changes in outcomes in randomized controlled trials: an observational study. Compliance with the CONSORT checklist in obstetric anaesthesia randomised controlled trials. Reporting randomised clinical trials of analgesics after traumatic or orthopaedic surgery is inadequate: a systematic review. Secular changes in the quality of published randomized clinical trials in rheumatology. Publication bias and meta-analyses: a practical example. Quality of reporting of key methodological items of randomized controlled trials in clinical ophthalmic journals. Identification and analysis of randomised controlled trials in nursing: a preliminary study. Abstracts of randomized controlled trials presented at the society for pediatric research meeting: an example of publication bias. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. Randomized controlled trials in pediatric surgery: could we do better? A systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials. The quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials published in Ophthalmology. Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search. Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Quality of reporting internal and external validity data from randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Time to publication as full reports of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in cystic fibrosis. Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. Quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in cerebral palsy.
The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To date, a paucity of data exists regarding whether it has achieved this goal.
                To determine whether use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvement in the quality of reports of RCTs.
                Comparative before-and-after evaluation in which reports of RCTs published in 1994 (pre-CONSORT) were compared with RCT reports from the same journals published in 1998 (post-CONSORT). We included 211 reports from BMJ, JAMA, and The Lancet (journals that adopted CONSORT) as well as The New England Journal of Medicine (a journal that did not adopt CONSORT and was used as a comparator).
                Number of CONSORT items included in a report, frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment, and overall trial quality score based on the Jadad scale, a 5-point quality assessment instrument.
                Compared with 1994, the number of CONSORT checklist items in reports of RCTs increased in all 4 journals in 1998, and this increase was statistically significant for the 3 adopter journals (pre-CONSORT, 23.4; mean change, 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-5.3). The frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment decreased for each of the 4 journals, and this change was statistically significant for adopters (pre-CONSORT, 61%; mean change, -22%; 95% CI, -38% to -6%). Similarly, 3 of the 4 journals showed an improvement in the quality score for reports of RCTs, and this increase was statistically significant for adopter journals overall (pre-CONSORT, 2.7; mean change, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8).
                Use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvements in the quality of reports of RCTs. To examine the extent to which the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guidelines improved clinical trials reporting and subject attrition, which may undermine the credibility of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs).
                Published RCTs reported in two major medical journals before and after the CONSORT guidelines were systematically reviewed; one used the CONSORT statement (JAMA) and one did not (NEJM).
                The quality of RCT reporting improved for both journals, but JAMA showed more significant and consistent improvements in all aspects of RCT reporting. Subject attrition was better accounted for after the publication of CONSORT, although the attrition rates for various reasons actually increased. Attrition due to unknown reasons, as a percentage of total attrition, declined dramatically, from 68.7% pre-CONSORT to 13.0% post-CONSORT.
                Attrition of study subjects remains a serious problem in RCTs. Bias from selective attrition can undermine the presumptive scientific advantage of RCTs. The CONSORT guidelines improved RCT reporting when they were implemented but did not substantially improve reported attrition rates. 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. To determine whether the CONSORT recommendations influenced the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of psychiatry, we evaluated the quality of clinical trial reports before and after the introduction of CONSORT statement. We selected seven high impact journals and retrieved the randomized, clinical trials in the field of psychiatry during the period of 1992-1996 (pre-CONSORT) and 2002-2007 (post-CONSORT). Among the total 5201 articles screened, 736 were identified and entered in our database. After critical review of the publications, 442 articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The CONSORT Index (sum of 22 items of the checklist) during the post-CONSORT period was significantly higher than that during the pre-CONSORT period. However, over 40% of post-CONSORT studies did not adhere to CONSORT statement for reporting the process of randomization, and details of the process for obtaining informed consent were still insufficient. Furthermore, adherence to the CONSORT guidelines of reporting how blinding was accomplished and evaluated actually decreased after publication of the CONSORT statement. Although the overall quality of reporting on psychiatric RCTs generally improved after publication of the CONSORT statement, reporting the details of randomization, blinding, and obtaining informed consent remain insufficient. 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. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was developed by a group of clinical trialists, biostatisticians, epidemiologists and biomedical editors as a means to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The purpose of the present study is to assess the reporting quality of published RCTs that compare endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) with open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) using the CONSORT statement.
                A computerized literature search was conducted to identify all RCTs published from January 1989 to November 2004 that compared ECTR with OCTR. Foreign language studies were also included, and translated versions of these studies were obtained. Two investigators independently reviewed each eligible article and determined whether the authors reported on each of the 22 items of the CONSORT statement. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The mean scores for studies published before the introduction of the CONSORT statement and those published afterward were compared. Similarly, a comparison was made between foreign language studies and those published in English.
                Eighteen RCTs comparing ECTR with OCTR met the inclusion criteria. The total scores on the CONSORT checklist ranged from 3 to 20, with a mean score of 9.83+/-3.79 (the maximum possible score was 22). The six studies published in foreign language journals had a statistically significantly lower mean score than the studies published in English language journals (7.00+/-2.76 versus 11.25+/-3.49, respectively; P<0.05). The mean score was higher for studies published after 1996 than for those published in 1996 or earlier (12.14+/-3.80 versus 8.36+/-3.11, respectively; P<0.05).
                The quality of reporting improved over time, but no study met all 22 criteria of the CONSORT statement. The CONSORT scores were higher for studies published after 1996 and for studies published in English language journals. Despite the improvement after 1996, most of these RCTs only reported one-half of the items listed on the CONSORT statement. Future investigators of surgical RCTs should make an effort to comply with the CONSORT checklist. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports. We assessed the quality of current Japanese RCT reports by conducting a cross-sectional study to examine the extent to which they adhere to the CONSORT statement.
                Reports of RCTs conducted in Japan that were published in medical journals between January and March 2004 were sampled from MEDLINE. The proportion of adherence to each item in the CONSORT checklist was evaluated for each report. Additionally, information on ethics reporting and funding sources was collected.
                A total of 98 RCT reports from Japan were evaluated, and adherence to the CONSORT statement was found to be suboptimal. Only 6 of 29 items in the checklist were described in more than 80% of reports. Adherence to key methodological items of the CONSORT statement was as follows: 23% for sample size determination, 39% for random sequence generation, 17% for allocation concealment, 29% for blinding, 53% for numbers analyzed, and 6% for inclusion of a flow diagram. Adherence to additional items was 82% for ethics committee approval, 92% for receiving informed consent, and 20% for disclosing funding sources.
                Our study on adherence of recent RCT reports from Japan to the CONSORT statement reveals that there is a significant need for improvement. Further investigation on the quality of RCT reports and ways to improve reporting quality is required. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best tool to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was introduced in 1996 to improve reporting of RCTs. We aimed to determine the extent of ambiguity and reporting quality as assessed by adherence to the CONSORT statement in published reports of RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma from 1966 through 2002.
                We analyzed 242 published full-text reports of RCTs in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 14-item questionnaire based on the CONSORT checklist. Reporting was studied in two pre-CONSORT periods (1966-1988 and 1989-1995) and one post-CONSORT period (1996-2002).
                Only six of the 14 items were addressed in 75% or more of the studies in all three time periods. Most items that are necessary to assess the methodologic quality of a study were reported by fewer than 20% of the studies. Improvements over time were seen for some items, including the description of statistics methods used, reporting of primary research outcomes, performance of power calculations, method of randomization and concealment allocation, and having performed intention-to-treat analysis.
                Despite recent improvements, reporting levels of CONSORT items in RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma remain unsatisfactory. Further concerted action by journal editors, learned societies, and medical schools is necessary to make authors even more aware of the need to improve the reporting RCTs in medical journals to allow assessment of validity of published clinical research. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best tool to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement is an evidence-based approach to improve the quality of RCTs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of published RCTs concerning myeloid hematologic malignancies according to the CONSORT statement.
                PubMed was searched for English-language RCTs involving patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Trials were considered eligible when participants were randomly assigned to at least two treatment arms and included patients with AML, CML or MDS. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 24-item questionnaire based on the CONSORT checklist. Reporting was assessed in one pre-CONSORT (1988-1995) and one post-CONSORT (1996-2008) period. The effect of CONSORT statement in high- and low-ranked journals, according to their impact factor, has also been evaluated.
                The search identified 261 eligible articles for analysis. Only 13 of the 24 items of CONSORT statement were addressed in 75% or more of the studies. Most items concerning the methodological issues were reported by fewer than 50% of the studies. Significant improvements over time were seen for items that assessed the methodological quality, while RCTs published in high-ranked journals showed better quality of reporting.
                Quality of reporting in RCTs focusing on myeloid malignancies remains unsatisfactory. Further improvement of reporting is necessary to assess the validity of clinical research. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery can provide valuable evidence of the efficacy of interventions if they are well-designed, appropriately executed, and adequately reported. Adequate reporting of methodology in surgical RCTs is known to be poor, and adverse-event reporting in surgical research is inconsistent. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a framework to help authors report their findings in a transparent manner. Extensions to the CONSORT statement have been published recently to address deficiencies in adverse-event reporting and in reporting of specific criteria related to nonpharmacologic treatments. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of trial methodology and adverse events in a sample of general surgical RCTs published in high-quality surgical journals using the criteria specified in the CONSORT statements.
                We used impact factor to identify the top three ranked surgical journals in 2004. We then obtained information on all RCTs published in these journals in the 2005 calendar year. We assessed quality of reporting using Jadad score, compared the quality of RCTs from CONSORT-endorsing journals with nonendorsers, and assessed the number of RCTs adequately reporting key generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria.
                Of 42 RCTs analyzed, only 40% (17 of 42) had a Jadad score > or = 3. There was no significant difference in the number of high-quality RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals compared with nonendorsers (p = 0.3). The median percentage of RCTs adequately reporting generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria was 32.5%, 17%, and 36.5%, respectively.
                Quality of reporting of generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria in surgical RCTs is poor. Increased attention to quality of reporting of surgical RCTs is required if studies are to meet published criteria. It is critical that the reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) be transparent and comprehensive. The aim of this study was to examine if adopting standards of reporting, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), improved the quality of reporting of alcohol treatment outcome studies. RCTs were identified from eight journals publishing a substantial number of alcohol treatment outcome studies (n=127 RCTs) and coded for the quality of reporting according to the CONSORT guidelines. Both CONSORT adopter and non-adopter journals showed significant improvements in the quality of reporting of alcohol treatment outcome studies over time. While overall results suggested a non-significant trend for more improvement over time in the quality of reporting for adopter compared to non-adopter journals, comparison of effects sizes suggested that specific areas of reporting did significantly improve for the adopter journals. Results suggest that efforts to improve reporting such as the CONSORT guidelines can be useful and influential.
                2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. In order to examine the reporting quality of urological RCTs, the initial objectives of this study were to evaluate the degree to which RCTs involving urological surgical techniques (as the intervention) published in the years 2000-2003 complied with the CONSORT statement, and to assess trends and patterns of compliance. Following our initial findings in urology, we extended the methodology to a number of other specialties to assess whether our findings in urology could be generalised to other surgical disciplines.
                The Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) Library was commissioned to search the Medline and Cochrane databases for RCTs in compliance with the study inclusion criteria below. Additional analyses of five other specialties (non-urological trials: cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hepatic, orthopaedic and vascular) were also made. For the non-urological trials, 15 English language trials (from each specialty) were randomly picked from a blast search conducted by the RSM for the year 2003. The RCTs were given a score out of 22, reflecting how many of the 22 CONSORT items were complied with (with each item being given equal weighting), this score was termed the "CONSORT score".
                Urology trials: In total 122 RCT abstracts were identified which met the inclusion criteria for this study. From these, 32 were excluded as they were follow-up studies, involved a virtual procedure or were a cost analysis, leaving 90 RCTs published across 35 different journals which were analysed (68.2%, 90/122). The average score of 11.1 for urological trials indicates that RCTs in our sample do not comply with the CONSORT statement. No trials reported how they implemented their randomisation process. Only 46% of RCTs stated that they had permission from an ethics review board, 20% had declared their sources of funding, 14% stated whether there were any conflicts of interest and only 1.1% stated their trial registry number. For non-urological studies, an average CONSORT score of 11.2 was obtained.
                Clinical research teams conducting RCTs in urology and other surgical disciplines demonstrate poor compliance with the CONSORT statement. We would recommend that trials should be registered at their outset and that urological and other surgical journals to consider supporting the CONSORT statement and to have compliance 'hard-wired' into their submission, editorial and peer-review processes. Since it seems the best researchers are unable to produce an RCT results which enable surgical techniques to be critically assessed, there is a need for education about the CONSORT statement and its importance at all levels of surgical training. We believe that an open debate is needed on the possible role of other research designs, such as tracker studies. Whether this study actually raises the question of how appropriate RCTs are to surgical techniques, we leave to the reader. CONSORT (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials) guidelines were constructed to ensure optimal reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
                To determine the effect of the adoption of CONSORT on the reporting quality of RCTs, we performed a systematic evaluation of RCTs published in two dermatology journals pre- and post-CONSORT adoption.
                The journals selected for the study were the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology and the British Journal of Dermatology. We selected RCTs published in 1997 and 2006 using both Medline and hand searching. The following critical CONSORT criteria were recorded: sample size, type of disease studied, type of control, single-centre or multicentre study, type of funding, blinding, methods and type of randomization, definition of a primary endpoint, justification for sample size selection and power calculation, population for analysis, and adequacy of group comparison. A multivariable analysis was conducted to determine factors associated with optimal reporting quality.
                In total, 98 studies were included. Improvement in reporting quality was evident for the specification of the randomization method (20% in 1997 vs. 45% in 2006, P < 0.01) and for the justification of sample size (22% in 1997 vs. 43% in 2006, P = 0.027). The percentage of studies with optimal reporting quality increased from 11% in 1997 to 28% in 2006 (P = 0.03). Factors significantly associated with a good methodological quality were pharmaceutical industry funding and publication in 2006 vs. 1997.
                There is a need to improve the reporting quality of RCTs published in dermatology journals. To evaluate the quality of reporting of surgical randomized controlled trials published in surgical and general medical journals using Jadad score, allocation concealment, and adherence to CONSORT guidelines and to identify factors associated with good quality.
                Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide the best evidence about the relative effectiveness of different interventions. Improper methodology and reporting of RCTs can lead to erroneous conclusions about treatment effects, which may mislead decision-making in health care at all levels.
                Information was obtained on RCTs published in 6 general surgical and 4 general medical journals in the year 2003. The quality of reporting of RCTs was assessed under masked conditions using allocation concealment, Jadad score, and a CONSORT checklist devised for the purpose.
                Of the 69 RCTs analyzed, only 37.7% had a Jadad score of > or =3, and only 13% of the trials clearly explained allocation concealment. The modified CONSORT score of surgical trials reported in medical journals was significantly higher than those reported in surgical journals (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001). Overall, the modified CONSORT score was higher in studies with higher author numbers (P = 0.03), multicenter studies (P = 0.002), and studies with a declared funding source (P = 0.022).
                The overall quality of reporting of surgical RCTs was suboptimal. There is a need for improving awareness of the CONSORT statement among authors, reviewers, and editors of surgical journals and better quality control measures for trial reporting and methodology. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of therapeutic interventions in acute drug overdose present a significant challenge for ethical, legal, and human rights protections of research subjects, particularly when healthy volunteers are involved. The CONSORT statement on the uniform reporting of clinical trials was published in 1996 with the overall aim of improving the reporting of RCTs, both individually and to facilitate their inclusion into systematic reviews. In CONSORT, reporting of ethical, legal, and human rights protections, including prior evaluation of the study by an ethics committee and provision of informed consent, was largely an implicit requirement. Those drafting CONSORT may have assumed such protections and the rights of study subjects were secured by existing doctor-patient relationships. Alternatively, CONSORT may have been viewed as likely to indirectly enhance such protections, as a flow-on effect of improved RCT design and reporting. We wished to examine whether such assumptions were justified by examining the reporting of RCTs of simulated overdose in healthy volunteers. We reviewed all reported RCTs involving activated charcoal in healthy human volunteersfor three years before the CONSORT statement (1989, 1990, and 1991) and three years afterwards (1999, 2000, 2001). Presence of documentation of inclusion and exclusion criteria, stopping rules, protocol deviations, information sheets, consent documentation, ethical approvals, conflicts of interest, understanding, refusal, inducements and coercion were recorded. We found a very poor level of reporting of some key ethical, legal, and human rights protections for healthy volunteers in toxicological RCTs. Reporting did not improve with the publication of CONSORT even in relation to requirements specifically included in the guidelines. Reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be of high quality to support the conclusions reached by the authors. Poor-quality reporting has been associated with an overestimation in intervention efficacy. Within the field of paediatric dentistry, no study has assessed the quality of reporting.
                The aim of this study was to assess published RCTs in paediatric dental journals between 1985 and 2006 for: (i) whether quality of reporting allows readers to assess the validity of trials; and (ii) whether quality of reporting has improved since the introduction of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.
                Hand search of the main paediatric dentistry journals; inclusion criteria were: the trial was performed on children, and RCT. CONSORT guidelines were made into an operational checklist. Trials published between 1985 and 1997, and between 1998 and 2006 were compared to determine any improvement since the publication of the CONSORT guidelines.
                One hundred and seventy-three of 5635 articles met the inclusion criteria. Reporting quality was poor overall and showed heterogeneity. It had improved slightly since the publication of CONSORT. Few trials were reported adequately.
                The quality of reporting of clinical trials is poor, and often not adequate to allow readers to assess trial validity. Overall quality of reporting has not substantially improved since the publication of CONSORT. To discuss the quality of reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), and to provide suggestions for improving the reporting of future clinical studies in this therapeutic area.
                A search of the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify RCTs of CHM. A revised CONSORT checklist designed for CHM clinical studies was implemented. The revised CONSORT checklist contained 63 items, including the following new items added specifically for CHM: (1) "syndrome of disease" based on Chinese medicine theories; (2) rationale of CHM formula; (3) formula composition; (4) preparation form of CHM; (5) quality control of CHM.
                The overall reporting quality of the RCTs as assessed with the revised CONSORT checklist varied between 19% and 44%, with a median score of 32% (standard deviation 8%).
                The overall quality of reporting of RCTs of CHM evaluated with a revised CONSORT checklist was poor, reflecting the need for improvements in reporting future clinical trials in this area.
                To improve the quality of reporting of RCTs of CHM, we recommend adopting a revised CONSORT checklist that includes items specific to CHM. We also recommend that editors of CHM journals require authors to use a structured approach to presenting their trials as a condition of publication. The effect of chemotherapy on survival of patients with advanced NSCLC is modest, therefore patient reported outcomes (PRO's) are of high interest in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards On Reporting Trials) is a quality checklist of 22 items for the conduct and reporting of RCTs. The aim of this report was to analyse to what extent the different RCTs with information on PRO's adhere to the CONSORT statement.
                Systematic review of RCTs using PRO's either as primary or secondary endpoint. Compliance with the (revised) CONSORT statement was checked by 2 independent reviewers by making for each study the simple sum of the 22 CONSORT items, or a weighted score with a maximum rating of 31 points.
                The median weighted CONSORT score of the different RCTs was 25, with a remarkable difference from 12 till 30. There was no significant change over time, nor difference between academic and commercial studies, but a significant correlation between CONSORT agreement and journal type (P<0.0001). Adherence to CONSORT was similar for studies comparing chemotherapy with best supportive care alone, comparing different first-line chemotherapies with PRO either as primary or secondary endpoint, or studies looking at second-line chemotherapy. Benefit in PRO's was reported in all of these settings.
                The overall adherence of peer-reviewed RCTs to CONSORT is reasonable, with nonetheless major differences between journals, and with no clear sign of change over time. Apart from modest survival differences, benefits in PRO endpoints are present in all categories of studies we analysed. Inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. The reporting quality of RCTs involving patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess the reporting quality of RCTs involving patients with PCOS using a standardized tool based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.
                We searched PubMed database for English-language RCTs involving patients with PCOS. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 24-item questionnaire based on the revised CONSORT checklist. Reporting was evaluated overall, and for pre- and post-CONSORT periods. RCTs on PCOS associated with fertility and non-fertility disturbances were also evaluated separately.
                Nine of the 24 items were reported in less than 50% of the studies, while a significant improvement (P < 0.05) was detected in 12 of 24 items (50%) over the two CONSORT periods. The RCTs on PCOS with reference to fertility seem to have adhered better to CONSORT statement than RCTs not associated to fertility.
                There is empirical evidence of suboptimal reporting quality of RCTs in PCOS. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement may optimize the reporting quality and enhance the validity of research. To evaluate the use and reporting of adjusted analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and compare the quality of reporting before and after the revision of the CONSORT Statement in 2001.
                Comparison of two cross sectional samples of published articles.
                Journal articles indexed on PubMed in December 2000 and December 2006.
                Parallel group RCTs with a full publication carried out in humans and published in English
                Proportion of articles reported adjusted analysis; use of adjusted analysis; the reason for adjustment; the method of adjustment and the reporting of adjusted analysis results in the main text and abstract.
                In both cohorts, 25% of studies reported adjusted analysis (84/355 in 2000 vs 113/422 in 2006). Compared with articles reporting only unadjusted analyses, articles that reported adjusted analyses were more likely to specify primary outcomes, involve multiple centers, perform stratified randomization, be published in general medical journals, and recruit larger sample sizes. In both years a minority of articles explained why and how covariates were selected for adjustment (20% to 30%). Almost all articles specified the statistical methods used for adjustment (99% in 2000 vs 100% in 2006) but only 5% and 10%, respectively, reported both adjusted and unadjusted results as recommended in the CONSORT guidelines.
                There was no evidence of change in the reporting of adjusted analysis results five years after the revision of the CONSORT Statement and only a few articles adhered fully to the CONSORT recommendations. The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in subfertility and their suitability for inclusion in meta-analyses have been assessed in the past and found to be insufficient. Our aim was to assess whether this quality has improved over time, particularly since the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, and to assess what proportion of trials could be included in the meta-analyses of pregnancy outcomes such as those included in Cochrane Reviews.
                A selection of subfertility trials published in 1990, 1996 and 2002 was collected from the Cochrane Menstrual Disorder and Subfertility Group (MDSG) database. Only trials published in English as full journal articles, claiming to be randomized and reporting on pregnancy outcomes, were included.
                One hundred and sixty-four trials met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-four (15%) were found not to be randomized, despite claims, and only 10 trials (6%) provided adequate details on the methods of randomization and allocation concealment. Of these, only three had sufficient details extractable to allow for an intention-to-treat analysis of the outcome 'live birth'.
                Although an improvement in some subfertility-specific issues was observed, the quality of reporting of RCTs still needs to improve to make them suitable for inclusion in meta-analyses such as those in the Cochrane Library. We appraised the compliance of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) cited for level A recommendations in obstetric practice bulletins (OPBs) and published after the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, published 1996) statement. From the CONSORT checklist, we identified 50 separate items the RCTs should describe in the article and assigned 1 point if present; 0, if absent. The CONSORT score was the total points, expressed as a percentage. From 1998 to 2006, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published 68 level A obstetric recommendations, and 20 (29%) are supported by > or = 1 RCT published after 1997. The median CONSORT score for the 32 RCTs published after the statement was 73% (range 30 to 100%). Only four RCTs complied with 90% of the CONSORT statement. RCTs supporting level A recommendations in OPB have variable compliance with CONSORT. Recommendations that lack quality RCTs should prompt further studies into the topic. Despite the large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing weight loss interventions, no study has assessed the quality of reporting in these trials.
                To assess the quality of reporting of RCTs of weight loss interventions and to identify predictors of reporting quality.
                The RCTs assessed were derived from a published systematic review of trials investigating the efficacy of weight loss interventions. For our study, two reviewers independently rated the quality of reporting in these trials, based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) Statement. We describe the quality of reporting using number (percent) of studies satisfying each of the 44 CONSORT criteria. We use generalized estimating equations (GEE) to fit a multivariable regression model to determine factors that are associated with the overall quality reporting score.
                We assessed 63 RCTs, of which 25 were dietary-lifestyle trials, 22 were pharmacological trials and 16 were behavior-cognitive, exercise-lifestyle, or surgical trials. Less than half (46%) of the trials defined the primary outcome of the study; about 10% provided the description of the method of allocation concealment. Multivariable GEE results showed that the sample size, type of intervention (non-pharmacologic trials having lower scores than pharmacologic trials), and publication time relative to the CONSORT Statement publication in 1996 (publications after 1996 having higher scores) were strong predictors of the quality reporting score. Reporting a statistically significant result on the primary outcome was not significantly associated with the quality score.
                While the overall quality in reporting seemed to have improved since the publication of the revised CONSORT Statement in 1996, the reporting of some key methodologic aspects, such as clear description of primary outcome and method of allocation concealment, still requires improvements. Factors that are significantly associated with the overall quality reporting score can be used as surrogates in the review of protocols to enhance the quality of the final reports. 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. 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. The number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is increasing. However, there have been few systematic assessments of the quality of reporting of these trials. Objective: This study was undertaken to evaluate the quality of reporting of RCTs in TCM journals published in mainland China from 1999 to 2004.
                Thirteen TCM journals were randomly selected by stratified sampling of the approximately 100 TCM journals published in mainland China. All issues of the selected journals published from 1999 to 2004 were hand-searched according to guidelines from the Cochrane Centre. All reviewers underwent training in the evaluation of RCTs at the Chinese Centre of Evidence-based Medicine. A comprehensive quality assessment of each RCT was completed using a modified version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist (total of 30 items) and the Jadad scale. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.
                Seven thousand four hundred twenty-two RCTs were identified. The proportion of published RCTs relative to all types of published clinical trials increased significantly over the period studied, from 18.6% in 1999 to 35.9% in 2004 (P < 0.001). The mean (SD) Jadad score was 1.03 (0.61) overall. One RCT had a Jadad score of 5 points; 14 had a score of 4 points; and 102 had a score of 3 points. The mean (SD) Jadad score was 0.85 (0.53) in 1999 (746 RCTs) and 1.20 (0.62) in 2004 (1634 RCTs). Across all trials, 39.4% of the items on the modified CONSORT checklist were reported, which was equivalent to 11.82 (5.78) of the 30 items. Some important methodologic components of RCTs were incompletely reported, such as sample-size calculation (reported in 1.1% of RCTs), randomization sequence (7.9%), allocation concealment (0.3 %), implementation of the random-allocation sequence (0%), and analysis of intention to treat (0%).
                The findings of this study indicate that the quality of reporting of RCTs of TCM has improved, but remains poor. The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is poor in general medicine and several areas of specialization but unknown in endocrinology.
                Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of RCTs in general endocrinology. A secondary objective was to identify predictors for better reporting quality.
                We systematically reviewed RCTs published in three general endocrinology journals between January 2005 and December 2006.
                We included parallel-design RCTs that addressed a question of treatment or prevention. Article selection and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently, and disagreements were resolved by consensus.
                There were two main outcomes: 1) a 15-point overall reporting quality score (OQS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT); and 2) a 3-point key score, based on allocation concealment, blinding, and use of intention-to-treat analysis.
                Eighty nine RCTs were included. The median OQS was 10 (interquartile range = 2). Allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis by intention to treat were reported in 10, 20, and 16 of the 89 RCTs, respectively. A multivariable regression analysis showed that complete industrial funding [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.014; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.010-1.018], journal of publication (IRR = 1.068; 95% CI, 1.007-1.132), and sample size (IRR = 1.048; 95% CI, 1.026-1.070) were significantly associated with a slightly better OQS.
                The quality of RCT reporting in general endocrine literature is suboptimal. We discuss our results, highlight the areas where improvements are needed, and provide some recommendations. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions provide the highest level of evidence about efficacy but their value either alone or within a meta-analysis is dependent on its methodological quality. For this reason recent RCTs in organ transplantation were assessed for quality. RCTs published between 2004 and 2006 (n = 332) were assessed, after excluding duplicate and nonEnglish reports. Quality was evaluated using the Jadad score plus allocation concealment and intention to treat analysis. We noted journal type, journal author instructions, funding source, sample size and number and location of study centres. Around one-third of RCTs had a Jadad score of 3 or greater (indication of a methodologically good quality trial) and the other two parameters were satisfied in just over one third. Although the majority of trials were published in speciality journals the quality of those published in general journals was superior. Commercially sponsored trials were of better quality as were multicentre trials in contrast to single centre trials. Overall quality of reporting of RCTs in organ transplantation is poor and as RCTs provide the highest level of evidence in evaluations of interventions there needs to be a concerted effort within the transplant community to improve the standards of RCTs. To assess the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the primary treatment of brain tumors and to identify significant predictors of quality.
                Two investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and bibliographies of retrieved articles for RCTs in the primary treatment of brain tumors published between January 1990 and December 2004. We assessed the quality of overall reporting and key methodologic factors reporting (allocation concealment, blinding, and intention to treat [ITT]). Two investigators also rated articles independently using items from the revised Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. A generalized estimated equation was used to generate regression models that identified significant factors associated with quality of reporting.
                We retrieved 74 relevant RCTs that randomly assigned 14,498 brain tumor patients. The quality of overall reporting has improved during the last 15 years, but eight of the 15 methodologic items were reported in less than 50% of trials. In the appraisal of the reporting quality of key methodologies, allocation concealment, blinding, and adherence to the ITT principle were reported in less than 30% of articles. Multivariable regression models revealed that an impact factor more than 1.66, publication after 1995, and sample size more than 280 were significant factors associated with better overall reporting, whereas complete industrial funding, impact factors more than 2.64, and positive primary outcomes were predictors of higher ratings of the three most important methodologic qualities.
                Despite improvement in general reporting quality, key methodologies that safeguard against biases may still benefit from better description. Significant factors associated with better reporting may act as surrogates for other characteristics. We wanted to investigate the frequency of undisclosed changes in the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between trial registration and publication.
                Using a retrospective, nonrandom, cross-sectional study design, we investigated RCTs published in consecutive issues of 5 major medical journals during a 6-month period and their associated trials registry entries. Articles were excluded if they did not have an available trial registry entry, did not have analyzable outcomes, or were secondary publications. The primary outcome was the proportion of publications in which the primary outcome of the trial was, without disclosure, changed between that recorded in the trial registry and that reported in the final publication. The secondary outcome was the proportion of publications in which the secondary outcome was changed without disclosure.
                We reviewed 158 reports of RCTs and included 110 in the analysis. In 34 (31%), a primary outcome had been changed, and in 77 (70%), a secondary outcome had been changed.
                There are substantial and important undisclosed changes made to the outcomes of published RCTs between trial registration and publication. This finding has important implications for the interpretation of trial results. Disclosure and discussion of changes would improve transparency in the performance and reporting of trials. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) checklist is an evidence-based approach to help improve the quality of reporting randomised controlled trials. The purpose of this study was to determine how closely randomised controlled trials in obstetric anaesthesia adhere to the CONSORT checklist. We retrieved all randomised controlled trials pertaining to the practice of obstetric anaesthesia and summarised in Obstetric Anesthesia Digest between March 2001 and December 2002 and compared the quality of reporting to the CONSORT checklist. The median number of correctly described CONSORT items was 65% (range 36% to 100%). Information pertaining to randomisation, blinding of the assessors, sample size calculation, reliability of measurements and reporting of the analysis were often omitted. It is difficult to determine the value and quality of many obstetric anaesthesia clinical trials because journal editors do not insist that this important information is made available to readers. Both clinicians and clinical researchers would benefit from uniform reporting of randomised trials in a manner that allows rapid data retrieval and easy assessment for relevance and quality. Several randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of analgesics in postoperative pain after traumatic or orthopaedic surgery (TOS) have been published, but no studies have assessed the quality of these reports. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting RCTs on analgesics for postoperative pain after TOS.
                Reports of RCTs assessing analgesics in postoperative pain after TOS were systematically searched from electronic databases. The quality of reports was assessed using the CONSORT checklist (scoring range from 0 to 22). The quality was considered poor when scoring was 12 or lesser. The publication year and the impact factor of journals were recorded.
                A total of 92 reports of RCTs were identified and 69 (75%) scored 12 or lesser in CONSORT checklist (range 5-17). The mean (SD) CONSORT score of all reports was 10.6 (2.7). Missing CONSORT items included primary and secondary outcome measures (11%), the specific objectives and hypothesis definition (12%), the sample size calculation (12%), the dates defining the periods of recruitment (12%), the discussion of external validity of findings (14%), the allocation sequence generation (24%), and the interpretation of potential bias or imprecision of results (25%). There was a little improvement in CONSORT scores over time (r = 0.62; p < 0.001) and with impact factor of journals (r = 0.30; p < 0.001).
                Quality of reporting RCTs on analgesics after TOS is poor. Reporting of those RCTs should be improved according to methodological standard checklists in the next years. To assess the quality of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in rheumatology and to determine whether there has been improvement in quality between 2 time periods, 1987-1988 and 1997-1998.
                Using MEDLINE and a hand search of selected rheumatology journals, we identified RCTs of adult rheumatic diseases published in English in 1987-1988 or 1997-1998. We examined trial quality with an expanded version of the Jadad scale, which assesses the adequacy of reported random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis. All trials were read by 1 reviewer, with prior standardization using a random sample read by 2 reviewers. We also evaluated "high"- versus "low"-impact journals based on citation index.
                Two hundred forty RCTs (1987-1988 119 RCTs, 1997-1998 121 RCTs) were assessed. Results showed improvement in the quality of the trials, but the rates of reported random sequence generation, allocation concealment, power, and intent-to-treat analyses were persistently low. Low rates of reports of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and intent-to-treat analyses were present even in the high-impact journals.
                There has been improvement in the quality of reporting of RCTs in rheumatology between 1987-1988 and 1997-1998. However, methodologic problems such as lack of allocation concealment, inadequate random sequence generation, lack of reporting of power, and lack of intent-to-treat analyses remain common. Many of these problems are established sources of bias in RCTs and are easily rectifiable. 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. To evaluate the reporting quality of key methodological items in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in four general clinical ophthalmology journals.
                The reporting of 11 key methodological items in RCTs published in American Journal of Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, British Journal of Ophthalmology and Ophthalmology in the year 2005 was assessed.
                Sixty-seven eligible RCTs were assessed and the mean number of items reported was 6.3 per RCT. No significant difference in the mean number of items reported was found between the four journals (P=0.20). The most frequently reported item was ethics approval and informed consent (97.0%), followed by masking status (85.1%), description of withdrawals (76.1%), adverse events (73.1%), and intention-to-treat analysis (71.6%). Details on sequence generation, randomization restriction, allocation concealment, allocation implementation, patient flow diagrams, and sample size calculation were reported in <50% of the RCTs assessed. Both sample size and page length of the RCTs correlated with the number of methodological items reported (P=0.024 and P=0.008, respectively).
                Similar to other specialties, rooms for improvement exist in the reporting of key methodological items of RCTs in clinical ophthalmic journals. Stricter adoption of the CONSORT statement might enhance the reporting quality of RCTs in ophthalmic journals. 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. 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. 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. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are accepted as the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of clinical interventions but are rarely reported in pediatric surgery. Have RCTs submitted to the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons (BAPS) Annual Congress during the last 5 years been adequately designed and large enough to produce a valid result?
                Abstracts accepted by the Annual BAPS Congress meetings between 1996 and 2000 were examined in collaboration with a senior health services researcher. The quality of the design, methodology, statistical analysis and conclusions, and the adequacy of the sample size were assessed for all identifiable clinical RCTs.
                From 760 accepted abstracts, there were only 9 RCTs (1%) of clinical interventions. In only 4 trials was the relevant primary end-point specified at the outset of the study, and none documented the method of randomization. Only one abstract mentioned blinding with respect to the intervention or outcome measure. Sample sizes were inadequate to detect even large clinical differences. To date, only one of these RCTs has been published in an English-language, peer-reviewed journal.
                Clear guidelines exist for the conduct of RCTs, yet compliance with these standards was rarely documented in abstracts of pediatric surgical RCTs presented at BAPS. Sample sizes were inadequate. RCTs in pediatric surgery are difficult to perform, but the specialty would benefit from well-designed, carefully conducted, multicentre, clinical RCTs to advance evidence-based practice.
                Copyright 2003, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. We investigated whether there had been an improvement in quality of reporting for randomised controlled trials of acupuncture since the publication of the STRICTA and CONSORT statements. We conducted a before-and-after study, comparing ratings for quality of reporting following the publication of both STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations.
                Ninety peer reviewed journal articles reporting the results of acupuncture trials were selected at random from a wider sample frame of 266 papers. Papers published in three distinct time periods (1994-1995, 1999-2000 and 2004-2005) were compared. Assessment criteria were developed directly from CONSORT and STRICTA checklists. Papers were independently assessed for quality of reporting by two assessors, one of whom was blind to information which could have introduced systematic bias (e.g. date of publication). We detected a statistically significant increase in the reporting of CONSORT items for papers published in each time period measured. We did not, however, find a difference between the number of STRICTA items reported in journal articles published before and 3 to 4 years following the introduction of STRICTA recommendations.
                The results of this study suggest that general standards of reporting for acupuncture trials have significantly improved since the introduction of the CONSORT statement in 1996, but that quality in reporting details specific to acupuncture interventions has yet to change following the more recent introduction of STRICTA recommendations. Wider targeting and revision of the guidelines is recommended. To evaluate the quality of reporting of all the new randomized clinical trials published during 1999 in OPHTHALMOLOGY: using the CONSORT statement parameters.
                Descriptive series of published studies. STUDIES INCLUDED: Randomized clinical trials.
                Eligible studies were all randomized clinical trials published in Volume 106 (1999) of OPHTHALMOLOGY: that reported the results of prospectively conducted studies in humans comparing two or more therapeutic options with regard to their effect on one or various outcomes, in which the authors stated that a process of randomization or quasi-randomization was performed before the interventions. Each study was evaluated by two independent observers establishing the specific report in the published manuscript of 57 CONSORT statement descriptors, and consensus was obtained between evaluators.
                Overall presence of CONSORT statement descriptors in published reports.
                The mean number of positive CONSORT descriptors for the 24 eligible randomized clinical trials was 33.42 (standard error of the mean [SEM] 1.57) of 57 possible. This score was significantly different (P: < 0.001) from the score of 16.6 (standard error of the mean 0.6) reported for OPHTHALMOLOGY: in the 1991 to 1994 study by Scherer and Crawley. Of the nine descriptors measuring the quality of abstract reporting, a mean of 6.25 (SEM 0.3) was included in the 24 study abstracts evaluated, significantly different from the Scherer and Crawley score (5.2, SEM 0.2. P: < 0.001). Four and six descriptors increased and decreased, respectively, their reporting in more than 20%. Key descriptors such as hypothesis postulation, primary outcome determination, sample size calculations, and a discussion of the limitations of the study such as bias, imprecision, and internal validity are still reported in less than 42% of clinical trials.
                This study describes for the first time after the adoption of the CONSORT statement recommendations the status on the quality of reporting of recently published randomized clinical trials in OPHTHALMOLOGY: Although not a direct measure of the intrinsic quality of a study, reporting quality provides the reader with useful tools for the evaluation of its validity. The quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials shows an overall improvement when compared with the period between 1991 and 1994. However, there is still significant room for improvement, especially in descriptors essential for the validation of clinical trial results that are still widely underreported. 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. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard for establishing new therapies in clinical oncology. Here we document changes with time in design, sponsorship, and outcomes of oncology RCTs.
                Reports of RCTs evaluating systemic therapy for breast, colorectal (CRC), and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) published 1975 to 2004 in six major journals were reviewed. Two authors abstracted data regarding trial design, results, and conclusions. Conclusions of authors were graded using a 7-point Likert scale. For each study the effect size for the primary end point was converted to a summary measure.
                A total of 321 eligible RCTs were included (48% breast, 24% CRC, 28% NSCLC). Over time, the number and size of RCTs increased considerably. For-profit/mixed sponsorship increased substantially during the study period (4% to 57%; P < .001). There was increasing use of time-to-event measures (39% to 78%) and decreasing use of response rate (54% to 14%) as primary end point (P < .001). Effect size remained stable over the study period. Authors have become more likely to strongly endorse the experimental arm (P = .017). A significant P value for the primary end point and industry sponsorship were each independently associated with endorsement of the experimental agent (odds ratio [OR] = 19.6, 95% CI, 8.9 to 43.1, and OR = 3.5, 95% CI, 1.6 to 7.5, respectively).
                RCTs in oncology have become larger and are more likely to be sponsored by industry. Authors of modern RCTs are more likely to strongly endorse novel therapies. For-profit sponsorship and statistically significant results are independently associated with endorsement of the experimental arm. It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process. There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this. This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality. A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument. Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples. Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions. The final version of the instrument included three items. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples. Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments. The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed. Stents are commonly used to treat patients with coronary artery disease. However, the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of stents has never been assessed.The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of reporting internal and external validity data in published reports of RCTs assessing the stents for percutaneous coronary interventions.
                A systematic literature review was conducted. Reports of RCTs assessing stents for percutaneous coronary interventions indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and published between January 2003 and September 2008 were selected. A standardized abstraction form was used to extract data. All analyses were adjusted for the effect of clustering articles by journal.
                132 articles were analyzed. The generation of the allocation sequence was adequate in 58.3% of the reports; treatment allocation was concealed in 34.8%. Adequate blinding was reported in one-fifth of the reports. An intention-to-treat analysis was described in 79.5%. The main outcome was a surrogate angiographic endpoint in 47.0%. The volume of interventions per center was described in two reports. Operator expertise was described in five (3.8%) reports. The quality of reporting was better in journals with high impact factors and in journals endorsing the CONSORT statement.
                The current reporting of results of RCTs testing stents needs to be improved to allow readers to appraise the risk of bias and the applicability of the results. 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. There has been increasing concern regarding the potential effects of the commercialization of research.
                In order to examine the relationships between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality, recent issues of five peer-reviewed, high impact factor, general medical journals were hand-searched to identify a sample of 100 randomized controlled trials (20 trials/journal). Relevant data, including funding source (industry/not-for-profit/mixed/not reported) and statistical significance of primary outcome (favouring new treatment/favouring conventional treatment/neutral/unclear), were abstracted. Quality scores were assigned using the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment.
                Sixty-six percent of trials received some industry funding. Trial outcome was not associated with funding source (p=.461). There was a preponderance of favourable statistical conclusions among published trials with 67% reporting results that favored a new treatment whereas 6% favoured the conventional treatment. Quality scores were not associated with funding source or trial outcome.
                It is not known whether the absence of significant associations between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality reflects a true absence of an association or is an artefact of inadequate statistical power, reliance on voluntary disclosure of funding information, a focus on trials recently published in the top medical journals, or some combination thereof. Continued and expanded monitoring of potential conflicts is recommended, particularly in light of new guidelines for disclosure that have been endorsed by the ICMJE. To determine the extent to which publication is influenced by study outcome.
                A cohort of studies submitted to a hospital ethics committee over 10 years were examined retrospectively by reviewing the protocols and by questionnaire. The primary method of analysis was Cox's proportional hazards model.
                University hospital, Sydney, Australia.
                748 eligible studies submitted to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee between 1979 and 1988.
                Time to publication.
                Response to the questionnaire was received for 520 (70%) of the eligible studies. Of the 218 studies analysed with tests of significance, those with positive results (P < 0.05) were much more likely to be published than those with negative results (P > or = 0.10) (hazard ratio 2.32 (95% confidence interval 1.47 to 3.66), P = 0.0003), with a significantly shorter time to publication (median 4.8 v 8.0 years). This finding was even stronger for the group of 130 clinical trials (hazard ratio 3.13 (1.76 to 5.58). P = 0.0001), with median times to publication of 4.7 and 8.0 years respectively. These results were not materially changed after adjusting for other significant predictors of publication. Studies with indefinite conclusions (0.05 < or = P < 0.10) tended to have an even lower publication rate and longer time to publication than studies with negative results (hazard ratio 0.39 (0.13 to 1.12), P = 0.08). For the 103 studies in which outcome was rated qualitatively, there was no clear cut evidence of publication bias, although the number of studies in this group was not large.
                This study confirms the evidence of publication bias found in other studies and identifies delay in publication as an additional important factor. The study results support the need for prospective registration of trials to avoid publication bias and also support restricting the selection of trials to those started before a common date in undertaking systematic reviews. In conducting reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on children with cerebral palsy, the assessment of trials can be hampered by problems in reporting. Therefore, we set out to evaluate trial reporting by using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement recommendations.
                Randomized, controlled trials published in 1990 or later were identified in literature searches for reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on children with cerebral palsy. Two independent reviewers evaluated the trial reporting by using a modified 33-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist.
                We identified 15 randomized, controlled trials. Almost half (48%) of the applicable items were reported adequately. Inadequate reporting was found in the following items: outcome measures, sample-size determination, details of the sequence generation, allocation concealment and implementation of the randomization, success of assessor blinding, recruitment and follow-up dates, intention-to-treat analysis, precision of the effect size, co-interventions, and adverse events.
                Only a small number of sufficiently reported trials were found. Because nearly all items had been described in at least 1 article, high-quality reporting seems feasible. Assessment of trials depends on appropriate reporting, and poor reporting jeopardizes judgments on the clinical implications. Authors of randomized, controlled trials are encouraged to follow the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria. There is a clear need to improve the quality of reporting of trials in this field.
Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influence of the CONSORT Statement dependent on the extent of editorial policies to ensure adherence to CONSORT guidance.