Are leading medical journals following their own policies on CONSORT reporting?

Inadequate reporting of participants eligible for randomized controlled trials - A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

to characterize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that did not report the overall number of participants assessed for eligibility and to identify factors associated with higher enrollment rates.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs in several pre-defined fields in internal medicine. We randomly extracted 360 articles that were published in 2017. Trials that reported numbers of assessed for eligibility patients were compared with those who did not. Recruitment rates were calculated in order to investigate whether they were associated with trial characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 360 RCTs were included. Only 2-thirds of the trials (242/360) reported the number of patients assessed for eligibility. Trials reporting eligibility data had better methodology, reported on the tested hypothesis, included a placebo arm, evaluated soft outcomes, published their findings in higher impact journals and recruited a higher number of randomized patients than those who did not. Recruitment rates in 225 (62.5%) trials enabling their calculation, were significantly higher in trials sponsored by industry, conducted in multiple centers and countries, including inpatients, tested non-inferiority hypothesis, included a placebo arm, and evaluated surrogate outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of participant eligibility continues to be scarce. Inadequate reporting was associated with poor methodological characteristics in trials.

Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

RESULTS

109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.

Revisiting the Quality of Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Nursing Literature

PURPOSE

To examine and update the literature on the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as reported in top nursing journals, based on manuscripts' adherence to the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines.

DESIGN

Descriptive review of adherence of RCT manuscript to CONSORT guidelines.

METHODS

Top 40 International Scientific Indexing (ISI) ranked nursing journals that published 20 or more RCTs between 2010 and 2014, were included in the study. Selected articles were randomly assigned to four reviewers who assessed the quality of the articles using the CONSORT checklist. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

FINDINGS

A total of 119 articles were included in the review. The mean CONSORT score significantly differed by journal but did not differ based on year of publication. The least consistently reported items included random allocation, who randomly assigned participants and whether those administering the interventions were blinded to group assignment.

CONCLUSIONS

Although progress has been made, there is still room for improvement in the quality of RCT reporting in nursing journals. Special attention must be paid to how adequately studies adhere to the CONSORT prior to publication in nursing journals.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Evidence from (RCTs) are thought to provide the best evidence for evaluating the impact of treatments and interventions by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Since the evidence may be used for the development of clinical practice guidelines, it is critical that RCTs be designed, conducted, and reported appropriately and precisely.

Adherence to the CONSORT Statement in the Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials on Pharmacological Interventions Published in Iranian Medical Journals

BACKGROUND

Among manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form the backbone of evidence-based medicine. Hence, their protocol should be designed rigorously and their results should be reported clearly. To improve the quality of RCT reporting, researchers developed the CONSORT Statement in 1996 and updated it in 2010. This study was designed to assess the quality of RCT reporting vis-à-vis adherence to CONSORT among articles published in Iranian medical journals (English, Persian, CONSORT-endorsing, and non-CONSORT-endorsing).

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, all RCTs published in all Iranian medical journals from September 2012 to September 2013 were retrieved to evaluate their adherence to CONSORT. The journals' instructions for authors were also reviewed to find out whether or not they endorsed CONSORT. The CONSORT 2010 Checklist was used. Microsoft Excel 2007 was applied to analyze the data, and MedCalc was employed to compare the groups.

RESULTS

Totally, 492 pharmacological RCTs that met our inclusion criteria were identified. Twenty-five items were reported in fewer than 50% of the articles. The differences between the articles published in Persian and English language journals were statistically significant in 17 items. The differences between the articles published in the CONSORT-endorsing and non-CONSORT-endorsing journals were significant in 8 items.

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed very weak adherence to CONSORT. Authors, reviewers, and editors should be trained to use standards expressed by the CONSORT Group in reporting RCTs.

Endorsement of CONSORT by Chinese medical journals: a survey of "instruction to authors"

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which Chinese medical (CM) journals incorporate Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) into their "instruction to authors".

METHODS

We reviewed the latest "instruction to authors" of the CM journals in China which indexed by MEDLINE in 2010 or Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) in 2012 and extracted all information of CONSORT, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), other reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. By reading the instructions to authors and reviewing recent studies published in those journals, those that do not publish clinical trials were excluded. We also contacted each of journals by telephone on contributor's status to ask them whether mentioned CONSORT in their instructions and incorporated it into their editorial and peer-review process. Full-text papers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs, from January 2011 to March 2012) published in the journals which mentioned "CONSORT" in their instructions for authors were downloaded.

RESULTS

Seven CM journals were included. Three of these journals mentioned CONSORT in its instructions. By telephone survey, all journals gave responses and all respondents knew CONSORT statement. Three of 7 journals required authors to comply with the CONSORT statement and provide the CONSORT checklist and a flow chart of the trial. The rest 4 journals recommended authors of RCTs to refer to the CONSORT statement. From January 2011 to March 2012, a total of 50 RCTs were obtained from the 3 journals endorsing the CONSORT statement; 17 (17/50, 34%) contained a flow diagram in their manuscript, and none of those RCTs had mentioned the trial registration information.

CONCLUSIONS

The endorsement of CONSORT by CM journals' "instruction to authors" was not satisfactory. The spread of CONSORT endorsement should be wider in instructing the performance of CM clinical trials in the future. Chinese journals should introduce CONSORT to their authors and require authors to comply with CONSORT when they submit their research.

Completeness of reporting of setting and health worker cadre among trials on antenatal iron and folic acid supplementation in pregnancy: an assessment based on two Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Poor reporting of medical trials has triggered the development of trial reporting standards within the scientific community. In addition to a description of the proposed intervention, adequate information about the trial setting and the group of health workers (cadre) delivering the intervention would allow a better understanding of the generalizability of the trial findings, facilitate replication of trial interventions and assist with assessment of trials for inclusion in systematic reviews. This study aims to determine the completeness of reporting for trial setting and cadre among trials included in two Cochrane reviews on iron and folic acid supplementation for women during pregnancy.

METHODS

From the 81 trials included in the two Cochrane reviews, we extracted data on the trial setting, including the facility type and geographic location, facility descriptors (i.e. level of care) and population descriptors (i.e. socioeconomic status); and the cadre, including professional qualifications, training and supervision.

RESULTS

Almost all studies reported the facility type and location (96%). However, only 68% included this information in the "methods" section of the report. Facility descriptors and population descriptors were less commonly reported (26% and 54% respectively). For 34% of the trials, we found some account of the type of health worker that delivered the intervention. Only 4% of the trials reported any training procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, complete reporting of setting and health worker cadre in iron and folic acid supplementation in pregnancy trials remains far from ideal, limiting assessments of the applicability of the trial findings. Trialists and journals need to ensure that this information is included in trial reports by adhering to and improving current reporting standards and by not making assumptions regarding readers' knowledge of the context and of the intervention delivery mechanism.

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals

BACKGROUND

An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.

OBJECTIVES

To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive.

SELECTION CRITERIA

In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors.   Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals

BACKGROUND

The extended Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for Abstracts was developed to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on the abstract. To date, few data exist regarding whether it has achieved this goal. We evaluated the extent of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract statement for quality of reports on RCT abstracts by four high-impact general medical journals.

METHODS

A descriptive analysis of published RCT abstracts in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in the year 2010 was conducted by two reviewers, independently extracting data from a MEDLINE/PubMed search.

RESULTS

We identified 271 potential RCT abstracts meeting our inclusion criteria. More than half of the abstracts identified the study as randomized in the title (58.7%; 159/271), reported the specific objective/hypothesis (72.7%; 197/271), described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection (60.9%; 165/271), detailed the interventions for both groups (90.8%; 246/271), and clearly defined the primary outcome (94.8%; 257/271). However, the methodological quality domains were inadequately reported: allocation concealment (11.8%; 32/271) and details of blinding (21.0%; 57/271). Reporting the primary outcome results for each group was done in 84.1% (228/271). Almost all of the abstracts reported trial registration (99.3%; 269/271), whereas reports of funding and of harm or side effects from the interventions were found in only 47.6% (129/271) and 42.8% (116/271) of the abstracts, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings show inconsistencies and non-adherence to the CONSORT for abstract guidelines, especially in the methodological quality domains. Improvements in the quality of RCT reports can be expected by adhering to existing standards and guidelines as expressed by the CONSORT group.

Reporting characteristics of cancer pain: a systematic review and quantitative analysis of research publications in palliative care journals

Objective:

A common disorder requiring symptom palliation in palliative and end-of-life care is cancer. Cancer pain is recognized as a global health burden. This paper sought to systematically examine the extent to which there is an adequate scientific research base on cancer pain and its reporting characteristics in the palliative care journal literature.

Materials and Methods:

Search conducted in MEDLINE and CINAHL sought to locate all studies published in 19 palliative/ hospice/ supportive/ end-of-life care journals from 2009 to 2010. The journals included were: American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care, BMC Palliative Care, Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care, End of Life Care Journal, European Journal of Palliative Care, Hospice Management Advisor, Indian Journal of Palliative Care, International Journal of Palliative Nursing, Internet Journal of Pain Symptom Control and Palliative Care, Journal of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy, Journal of Palliative Care, Journal of Palliative Medicine, Journal of Social Work in End-of-life and Palliative Care, Journal of Supportive Oncology, Palliative Medicine, Palliative and Supportive Care, and Supportive Care in Cancer. Journal contents were searched to identify studies that included cancer pain in abstract.

Results:

During the years 2009 and 2010, of the selected 1,569 articles published in the journals reviewed, only 5.86% (92 articles) were on cancer pain.

Conclusion:

While researchers in the field of palliative care have studied cancer pain, the total percentage for studies is still a low 5.86%. To move the field of palliative care forward so that appropriate guidelines for cancer pain management can be developed, it is critical that more research be reported upon which to base cancer pain therapy in an evidence-based palliative care model.

Reporting experiments in homeopathic basic research (REHBaR)--a detailed guideline for authors

BACKGROUND

Reporting experiments in basic research in homeopathy is an important issue as comprehensive description of what exactly was done is required. So far, there is no guideline for authors available, unlike criteria catalogues common in clinical research.

METHODS

A Delphi Process was conducted, including a total of five rounds, three rounds of adjusting and phrasing plus two consensus conferences. European researchers who published experimental work within the last five years were involved.

RESULTS

A checklist of 23 items was obtained and supplemented with detailed examples emphasizing what each item implies. Background, objectives and possible hypotheses should be given in the part 'introduction'. Special emphasis is put on the 'materials and methods' section, where a detailed description of chosen controls, object of investigation, experimental setup, replication, parameters, intervention, allocation, blinding, and statistical methods is required. The section 'results' should present sufficient details on analysed data, descriptive as well as inferential. Authors should discuss their results and give an interpretation in the context of current evidence.

CONCLUSION

A guideline for Reporting Experiments in Homeopathic Basic Research (REHBaR) was compiled to be applied by authors when preparing their manuscripts, and to be used by scientific journals in the reviewing process. Furthermore the guideline is a commitment to a certain minimum quality level needed in basic research, e.g. blinding and randomisation. Feedback is encouraged on applicability, strength and limitations of the list to enable future revisions.

A review of reporting of participant recruitment and retention in RCTs in six major journals

Background

Poor recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is problematic but common. Clear and detailed reporting of participant flow is essential to assess the generalisability and comparability of RCTs. Despite improved reporting since the implementation of the CONSORT statement, important problems remain. This paper aims: (i) to update and extend previous reviews evaluating reporting of participant recruitment and retention in RCTs; (ii) to quantify the level of participation throughout RCTs.

Methods

We reviewed all reports of RCTs of health care interventions and/or processes with individual randomisation, published July–December 2004 in six major journals. Short, secondary or interim reports, and Phase I/II trials were excluded. Data recorded were: general RCT details; inclusion of flow diagram; participant flow throughout trial; reasons for non-participation/withdrawal; target sample sizes.

Results

133 reports were reviewed. Overall, 79% included a flow diagram, but over a third were incomplete. The majority reported the flow of participants at each stage of the trial after randomisation. However, 40% failed to report the numbers assessed for eligibility. Percentages of participants retained at each stage were high: for example, 90% of eligible individuals were randomised, and 93% of those randomised were outcome assessed. On average, trials met their sample size targets. However, there were some substantial shortfalls: for example 21% of trials reporting a sample size calculation failed to achieve adequate numbers at randomisation, and 48% at outcome assessment. Reporting of losses to follow up was variable and difficult to interpret.

Conclusion

The majority of RCTs reported the flow of participants well after randomisation, although only two-thirds included a complete flow chart and there was great variability over the definition of "lost to follow up". Reporting of participant eligibility was poor, making assessments of recruitment practice and external validity difficult. Reporting of participant flow throughout RCTs could be improved by small changes to the CONSORT chart.

The impact of the CONSORT statement on reporting of randomized clinical trials in psychiatry

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.