Quality of reports on randomized controlled trials conducted in Japan: evaluation of adherence to the CONSORT statement. CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. Reporting of randomized controlled trials in Hodgkin lymphoma in biomedical journals. Are leading medical journals following their own policies on CONSORT reporting? Quality of reporting of key methodological items of randomized controlled trials in clinical ophthalmic journals. Secular changes in the quality of published randomized clinical trials in rheumatology.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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.
The results of this review are inconclusive. The review raises important methodological issues. There is a need for an RCT which needs to be well-designed in terms of adequate randomisation allocation, blinding, power and long-term follow up. Results need to be standardised to a consistent method of reporting, in order to validate the pooling of results from multiple trials.