CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals

Use of guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations in behavioral intervention preliminary studies and associations with reporting comprehensiveness: a scoping bibliometric review

BACKGROUND

Guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations (GCFRs) related to preliminary studies serve as essential resources to assist behavioral intervention researchers in reporting findings from preliminary studies, but their impact on preliminary study reporting comprehensiveness is unknown. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping bibliometric review of recently published preliminary behavioral-focused intervention studies to (1) examine the prevalence of GCFR usage and (2) determine the associations between GCFR usage and reporting feasibility-related characteristics.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted for preliminary studies of behavioral-focused interventions published between 2018 and 2020. Studies were limited to the top 25 journals publishing behavioral-focused interventions, text mined to identify usage of GCFRs, and categorized as either not citing GCFRs or citing ≥ 2 GCFRs (Citers). A random sample of non-Citers was text mined to identify studies which cited other preliminary studies that cited GCFRs (Indirect Citers) and those that did not (Never Citers). The presence/absence of feasibility-related characteristics was compared between Citers, Indirect Citers, and Never Citers via univariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Studies (n = 4143) were identified, and 1316 were text mined to identify GCFR usage (n = 167 Citers). A random sample of 200 studies not citing a GCFR were selected and categorized into Indirect Citers (n = 71) and Never Citers (n = 129). Compared to Never Citers, Citers had higher odds of reporting retention, acceptability, adverse events, compliance, cost, data collection feasibility, and treatment fidelity (ORrange = 2.62-14.15, p < 0.005). Citers also had higher odds of mentioning feasibility in purpose statements, providing progression criteria, framing feasibility as the primary outcome, and mentioning feasibility in conclusions (ORrange = 6.31-17.04, p < 0.005) and lower odds of mentioning efficacy in purpose statements, testing for efficacy, mentioning efficacy in conclusions, and suggesting future testing (ORrange = 0.13-0.54, p < 0.05). Indirect Citers had higher odds of reporting acceptability and treatment fidelity (ORrange = 2.12-2.39, p < 0.05) but lower odds of testing for efficacy (OR = 0.36, p < 0.05) compared to Never Citers.

CONCLUSION

The citation of GCFRs is associated with greater reporting of feasibility-related characteristics in preliminary studies of behavioral-focused interventions. Researchers are encouraged to use and cite literature that provides guidance on design, implementation, analysis, and reporting to improve the comprehensiveness of reporting for preliminary studies.

Quality problems of clinical trials in China: evidence from quality related studies

Background

Recently, the quality of clinical trials conducted in China has made considerable progress. However, clinical trials conducted in China still fall below the global average standard. The aim of this systematic review was to assess studies that investigated the quality of clinical trials conducted in China, summarize the issues, and provide suggestions for conducting high-quality clinical trials in China.

Methods

We comprehensively searched studies that investigated the quality of clinical trials conducted in China in the following databases from inception to December 1, 2021: National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, WanFang Data, China Biology Medicine, PubMed, and Embase. We then analyzed the issues in clinical trial registration, ethics review, implementation, and reporting. SPSS 25.0 software was used for data analysis. The data synthesis was conducted using summary statistics and a narrative format.

Results

A total of 90 studies were analyzed, there were 50 studies with 0–5 citation counts (55.56%), 18 studies with 5–10 citation counts (20%), 9 studies with 10–15 citation counts (10%), and 13 studies with more than 15 citation counts (14.44%). Eight (8.89%) studies were conducted by a supervision department, 38 (42.22%) by organizations with GCP qualification, and 44 (48.89%) by third parties. Additionally, there were some problems in the ethical review process of clinical trials, clinical trial registration process, clinical trial implementation process, and clinical trial reporting process.

Conclusions

The current study shows that the quality problems of clinical trials in China still exist. The reported problems are related to the process of clinical trials, including ethical review, registration, implementation, reporting. Due to the limited quantity and quality of included studies, the conclusions of this study need to be verified by high-quality studies.

Review registration

Not registerated in  PROSPERO.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06281-1.

Guidelines are needed for studies of pre-treatment HIV drug resistance: a methodological study

BACKGROUND

The expansion of access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been accompanied by an increase in pre-treatment drug resistance (PDR). While it is critical to monitor the increasing prevalence of PDR across countries and populations to inform optimal regimen selection, the completeness of reporting is often suboptimal, limiting the interpretation and generalizability of the results. Indeed, there is no formal guidance on how studies investigating the prevalence of drug resistance should be reported. Thus, we sought to determine the completeness of reporting in studies of PDR and the factors associated with sub-optimal reporting to ascertain the need for guidelines.

METHODS

As part of a systematic review on the global prevalence of PDR in key populations (men who have sex with men, sex workers, transgender people, people who inject drugs and people in prisons), we searched 10 electronic databases until January 2019. We extracted information on selected study characteristics useful for interpreting prevalence data. Data were extracted in duplicate. Analyses of variance and correlation were used to explore factors that may explain the number of items reported.

RESULTS

We found 650 studies of which 387 were screened as full text and 234 were deemed eligible. The included studies were published between 1997 and 2019 and included a median of 239 (quartile 1 = 101; quartile 3 = 778) participants. Most studies originated from high-income countries (125/234; 53.0%). Of 23 relevant data items, including study design, setting, participant sociodemographic characteristics, HIV risk factors, type of resistance test conducted, definition of resistance, the mean (standard deviation) number of items reported was 13 (2.2). We found that more items were reported in studies published more recently (r = 0.20; p < 0.002) and in studies at low risk of bias (F [2231] = 8.142; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Incomplete reporting in studies on PDR makes characterising levels of PDR in subpopulations across countries challenging. Hence, guidelines are needed to define a minimum set of variables to be included in such studies.

How prevalent are financial conflicts of interest in dermatology randomized controlled trials? A cross-sectional study

Since the last assessment of conflicts of interest (COIs) in dermatology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 2004, several countries have introduced transparency databases. We assessed the prevalence of financial COIs in dermatology RCTs and quantified payments from study sponsors to academic/clinical authors using transparency databases, which are available in the USA, France, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands, while the UK has a noncompulsory transparency database. We included RCTs from the top 10 dermatology journals and the top 7 general medical journals published in 2019. The study assessed 83 RCTs, and COIs were identified in 69%. The highest prevalence was in exclusively industry-funded trials (46/47, 98%), which consisted of personal payments to an academic/clinical author (96% of trials) and having authors who were employees/stockholders (96%). Payments were identified for 31/56 (55%) academic/clinical first/final authors (median payment US$28 746, maximum US$597 299, interquartile range US$17 061-146 253), and 24/31 payments (77%) payments were each > US$10 000.

A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why

BACKGROUND

Methodological studies - studies that evaluate the design, analysis or reporting of other research-related reports - play an important role in health research. They help to highlight issues in the conduct of research with the aim of improving health research methodology, and ultimately reducing research waste.

MAIN BODY

We provide an overview of some of the key aspects of methodological studies such as what they are, and when, how and why they are done. We adopt a "frequently asked questions" format to facilitate reading this paper and provide multiple examples to help guide researchers interested in conducting methodological studies. Some of the topics addressed include: is it necessary to publish a study protocol? How to select relevant research reports and databases for a methodological study? What approaches to data extraction and statistical analysis should be considered when conducting a methodological study? What are potential threats to validity and is there a way to appraise the quality of methodological studies?

CONCLUSION

Appropriate reflection and application of basic principles of epidemiology and biostatistics are required in the design and analysis of methodological studies. This paper provides an introduction for further discussion about the conduct of methodological studies.

Complete and transparent reporting of primary end points of randomized trials in the dermatology literature: A comparison of registered and published primary end points

BACKGROUND

Appropriate primary end points in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) improve the quality of the measurement and enable comparison of the findings with those of other trials.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of reporting primary end points in RCTs recently published in dermatology journals.

METHODS

We identified 134 primary reports of RCTs among original articles in 4 dermatology journals published from January 2016 to December 2018. Details were extracted from articles, supplements, and trial registries. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with adequate primary end point reporting.

RESULTS

Adequate primary end point reporting was conducted in 76 of 134 RCTs (56.7%). Nine missed the definition of primary end points, and 13 did not define the timing of primary end points in the publications. Among 113 RCTs reporting primary end points explicitly in the articles, 16 showed discrepancies between registration and publication, and 21 were not able to valuate prespecification of primary end points. Multicenter studies and sponsor-initiated trials were significantly associated with adequate reporting quality after adjusting for covariates.

LIMITATIONS

Prespecification was evaluated based on a comparison of the article and registry.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of primary end point reporting, particularly in prespecification, has remained unsatisfactory in the recent dermatology literature.

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.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update

PURPOSE

Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).

RESULTS

Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Lack of confidence interval reporting in dermatology: a call to action

BACKGROUND

Confidence intervals (CIs) offer a complete and intuitive presentation of results and are more informative than P-values. The current prevalence of CI reporting in the dermatology literature has not been discussed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate CI reporting prevalence in the dermatology literature, factors predicting reporting and to compare CI reporting in the dermatology literature with dermatology research in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

METHODS

MEDLINE was queried for trials and observational studies published from 2007 to 2017 in six dermatology journals with varying impact factors: British Journal of Dermatology, Journal of Investigative Dermatology, JAMA Dermatology, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, European Journal of Dermatology and Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. Randomly selected studies were reviewed to calculate CI reporting prevalence, and logistic regression identified factors predictive of CI reporting.

RESULTS

Of 97 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, only 21 (22%; 95% CI 14-31%) reported CIs for the primary outcome. Of the remaining 76 studies, 43 reported a measure of variance (57%; 95% CI 45-67%). More recent year of publication was the strongest predictor for CI reporting [odds ratio 1·44; 95% CI 1·10-1·89 (P = 0·01)] in multivariable analysis. CI reporting in NEJM was significantly higher than in the dermatology literature (64% vs. 22%; P < 0·001).

CONCLUSIONS

CI reporting in the dermatology literature is low. We urge both dermatology journals and researchers to improve clinical interpretation of study results by taking steps to increase CI reporting.

Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions

Evidence from a well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) is generally considered to be the gold standard that can inform clinical practice and guide decision-making. However, several deficiencies in the reporting of RCTs have frequently been identified, including incomplete, selective, and biased or inconsistent reporting. Such suboptimal reporting may lead to irreproducible results, substantial waste of resources, impaired study validity, erosion of public trust in science, and a high risk of research misconduct. In this article, we present an overview of the reporting of RCTs in the biomedical literature with a focus on the three most common reporting problems: (i) lack of adherence to reporting guidelines, (ii) inconsistencies between trial protocols or registrations and full reports, and (iii) inconsistencies between abstracts and their corresponding full reports. Unsatisfactory levels of adherence to guidelines and frequent inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports, and between abstracts and full reports, were consistently found in various biomedical research fields. A variety of factors were found to be associated with these reporting challenges. Improved reporting can build public trust and credibility of science, save resources, and enhance the ethical integrity of research. Therefore, joint efforts from the various sectors of the biomedical community (researchers, journal editors and reviewers, educators, healthcare providers, and other research consumers) are needed to reduce and reverse the current suboptimal state of RCT reporting in the literature.

Systematic review of self-management interventions for people with eczema

Eczema is a common long‐term condition, but inadequate support and information can lead to poor adherence and treatment failure. We have reviewed the international literature of interventions designed to promote self‐management in adults and children with eczema. MEDLINE, MEDLINE in process, Embase, CINAHL and the Global Resource for EczemA Trials database were searched from their inception to August 2016, for randomized controlled trials. Two authors independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed risk of bias for all included studies and extracted data. Twenty studies (3028 participants) conducted in 11 different countries were included. The majority (n = 18) were based in secondary care and most (n = 16) targeted children with eczema. Reporting of studies, including descriptions of the interventions and the outcomes themselves, was generally poor. Thirteen studies were face‐to‐face educational interventions, five were delivered online and two were studies of written action plans. Follow‐up in most studies (n = 12) was short term (up to 12 weeks). Only six trials specified a single primary outcome. There was limited evidence of effectiveness. Only three studies collected and reported outcomes related to cost and just one study undertook any formal cost‐effectiveness analysis. In summary, we have identified a general absence of well‐conducted and well‐reported randomized controlled trials with a strong theoretical basis. Therefore, there is still uncertainty about how best to support self‐management of eczema in a clinically effective and cost‐effective way. Recommendations on design and conduct of future trials are presented.

What's already known about this topic?

Eczema requires a high degree of self‐management by patients.

Adherence to eczema treatments, and hence control of symptoms, can be poor.

There is uncertainty about how best to support self‐management in a clinically effective and cost‐effective way.

What does this study add?

A wide range of interventions designed to promote self‐management have been evaluated in 20 studies across 11 different countries.

Reporting of the design and conduct of these studies is generally poor, and explicit theory describing how interventions are expected to improve care is uncommon.

What works best for people with eczema and whether it is cost‐effective is unknown.

Recommendations for future trials are made.

Linked Comment: Arents. Br J Dermatol 2017; 177:613–614

Plain language summary available online

Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews (SRs) often poorly report key information, thereby diminishing their usefulness. Previous studies evaluated published SRs and determined that they failed to meet explicit criteria or characteristics. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was recommended as a reporting guideline for SR and meta-analysis (MA), but previous studies showed that adherence to the statement was not high for SRs published in different medical fields. Thus, the aims of this study are twofold: (1) to investigate the number of nursing journals that have required or recommended the use of the PRISMA statement for reporting SR, and (2) to examine the adherence of SRs and/or meta-analyses to the PRISMA statement published in nursing journals.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Nursing journals listed in the ISI journal citation report were divided into 2 groups based on the recommendation of PRISMA statement in their 'Instruction for Authors'. SRs and meta-analyses published in 2014 were searched in 3 databases. 37 SRs and meta-analyses were randomly selected in each group. The adherence of each item to the PRISMA was examined and summarised using descriptive statistics. The quality of the SRs was assessed by Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews. The differences between the 2 groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Out of 107 nursing journals, 30 (28.0%) recommended or required authors to follow the PRISMA statement when they submit SRs or meta-analyses. The median rates of adherence to the PRISMA statement for reviews published in journals with and without PRISMA endorsement were 64.9% (IQR: 17.6-92.3%) and 73.0% (IQR: 59.5-94.6%), respectively. No significant difference was observed in any of the items between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The median adherence of SRs and meta-analyses in nursing journals to PRISMA is low at 64.9% and 73.0%, respectively. Nonetheless, the adherence level of nursing journals to the PRISMA statement does not significantly vary whether they endorse or recommend such a guideline.

Evaluation of the Endorsement of the STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA) Statement on the Reporting Quality of Published Genetic Association Studies

The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) statement was based on the STrengthening the REporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement, and it was published in 2009 in order to improve the reporting of genetic association (GA) studies. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of STREGA endorsement on the quality of reporting of GA studies published in journals in the field of genetics and heredity (GH). Quality of reporting was evaluated by assessing the adherence of papers to the STREGA checklist. After identifying the GH journals that endorsed STREGA in their instructions for authors, we randomly appraised papers published in 2013 from journals endorsing STREGA that published GA studies (Group A); in GH journals that never endorsed STREGA (Group B); in GH journals endorsing STREGA, but in the year preceding its endorsement (Group C); and in the same time period as Group C from GH journals that never endorsed STREGA (Group D). The STREGA statement was referenced in 29 (18.1%) of 160 GH journals, of which 18 (62.1%) journals published GA studies. Among the 18 journals endorsing STREGA, we found a significant increase in the overall adherence to the STREGA checklist over time (A vs C; P < 0.0001). Adherence to the STREGA checklist was significantly higher in journals endorsing STREGA compared to those that did not endorse the statement (A vs B; P = 0.04). No significant improvement was detected in the adherence to STREGA items in journals not endorsing STREGA over time (B vs D; P > 0.05). The endorsement of STREGA resulted in an increase in quality of reporting of GA studies over time, while no similar improvement was reported for journals that never endorsed STREGA.

Use of adjectives in abstracts when reporting results of randomized, controlled trials from industry and academia

Objective

Accurate representation of study findings is crucial to preserve public trust. The language used to describe results could affect perceptions of the efficacy or safety of interventions. We sought to compare the adjectives used in clinical trial reports of industry-authored and non-industry-authored research.

Methods

We included studies in PubMed that were randomized trials and had an abstract. Studies were classified as “non-industry-authored” when all authors had academic or governmental affiliations, or as “industry-authored” when any of the authors had industry affiliations. Abstracts were analyzed using a part-of-speech tagger to identify adjectives. To reduce the risk of false positives, the analysis was restricted to adjectives considered relevant to “coloring” (influencing interpretation) of trial results. Differences between groups were determined using exact tests, stratifying by journal.

Results

A total of 306,007 publications met the inclusion criteria. We were able to classify 16,789 abstracts; 9,085 were industry-authored research, and 7,704 were non-industry-authored research. We found a differential use of adjectives between industry-authored and non-industry-authored reports. Adjectives such as “well tolerated” and “meaningful” were more commonly used in the title or conclusion of the abstract by industry authors, while adjectives such as “feasible” were more commonly used by non-industry authors.

Conclusions

There are differences in the adjectives used when study findings are described in industry-authored reports compared with non-industry-authored reports. Authors should avoid overusing adjectives that could be inaccurate or result in misperceptions. Editors and peer reviewers should be attentive to the use of adjectives and assess whether the usage is context appropriate.

How Often Do Comparative Randomised Controlled Trials in the Field of Eczema Fail to Directly Compare the Treatments Being Tested?

The objective of the study was to identify all parallel design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for eczema in recent dermatology literature that have failed to report a between-group analysis. The GREAT database (www.greatdatabase.org.uk) was searched to identify parallel group RCTs comparing two or more interventions published in the English language in the last decade, 2004 to 2013. The primary outcome was the number of studies that had not reported a between-group analysis for any of the outcomes. Where possible we re-analysed the data to determine whether a between-group analysis would have given a different conclusion to that reported. Out of a total of 304 RCTs in the study period, 173 (56.9%) met the inclusion criteria. Of the 173 eligible studies, 12 (6.9%) had not conducted a between-group analysis for any of the reported outcomes. There was no clear improvement over time. Five of the eight studies that were re-analysed yielded non-significant between-group differences yet reported significant within-group comparisons. All but one of the 12 studies implied that the experimental intervention was successful despite not undertaking any between-group comparisons. Although the proportion of all RCTs that fail to report an appropriate between-group analysis is small, the fact that any scientist who purports to compare one treatment against another then chooses to omit the key comparison statistic is worrying.

An updated survey for the 2007-2013 period of randomized controlled trials for psoriasis: treatment modalities, study designs, comparators, outcome measures and sponsorship

BACKGROUND

Two reports from the European Dermato-Epidemiology Network psoriasis project have analysed randomized controlled trials for psoriasis published during the periods of 1977-2000 and 2001-2006.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to update the analysis of randomized controlled trials for the 2007-2013 period from 10 high-impact dermatology and medical journals.

METHODS

This survey was conducted by electronic search on the PubMed database for eligible papers. We assessed and compared results to the two aforementioned published reports.

RESULTS

In total, 84 studies were evaluated. Over half of the total trials studied novel therapeutics: 40 (47.6%) trials examined biologics and five (6.0%) examined novel oral agents. Proportion of trials studying more than one treatment modality increased from 7.1% in 2001-2006 to 25.0% in 2007-2013, with a decreased proportion of placebo-controlled studies from 69.3% to 47.1%.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of trials on novel therapies, including novel oral and biologic agents, has increased. The quality of trials has improved in the aspects of increased active treatment comparisons, including between biologics and conventional agents, and increased study size. Further insight into the influence of pharmaceutical companies can be studied by extending analysis to extension studies and subanalyses.

The reporting quality of parallel randomised controlled trials in ophthalmic surgery in 2011: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent a gold standard for evaluating therapeutic interventions. However, poor reporting clarity can prevent readers from assessing potential bias that can arise from a lack of methodological rigour. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological interventions 2008 (CONSORT NPT) was developed to aid reporting. RCTs in ophthalmic surgery pose particular challenges in study design and implementation. We aim to provide the first assessment of the compliance of RCTs in ophthalmic surgery to the CONSORT NPT statement.

METHOD

In August 2012, the Medline database was searched for RCTs in ophthalmic surgery reported between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2011. Results were searched by two authors and relevant papers selected. Papers were scored against the 23-item CONSORT NPT checklist and compared against surrogate markers of paper quality. The CONSORT score was also compared between different RCT designs.

RESULTS

In all, 186 papers were retrieved. Sixty-five RCTs, involving 5803 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The mean CONSORT score was 8.9 out of 23 (39%, range 3.0-14.7, SD 2.49). The least reported items related to the title and abstract (1.6%), reporting intervention adherence (3.1%), and interpretation of results (4.7%). No significant correlation was found between CONSORT score and journal impact factor (R=0.14, P=0.29), number of authors (R=0.01, P=0.93), or whether the RCT used paired-eye, one-eye, or two-eye designs in their randomisation (P=0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting of RCTs in ophthalmic surgery is suboptimal. Further work is needed by trial groups, funding agencies, authors, and journals to improve reporting clarity.

The reporting of observational clinical functional magnetic resonance imaging studies: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Complete reporting assists readers in confirming the methodological rigor and validity of findings and allows replication. The reporting quality of observational functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies involving clinical participants is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine the quality of reporting in observational fMRI studies involving clinical participants.

METHODS

We searched OVID MEDLINE for fMRI studies in six leading journals between January 2010 and December 2011.Three independent reviewers abstracted data from articles using an 83-item checklist adapted from the guidelines proposed by Poldrack et al. (Neuroimage 2008; 40: 409-14). We calculated the percentage of articles reporting each item of the checklist and the percentage of reported items per article.

RESULTS

A random sample of 100 eligible articles was included in the study. Thirty-one items were reported by fewer than 50% of the articles and 13 items were reported by fewer than 20% of the articles. The median percentage of reported items per article was 51% (ranging from 30% to 78%). Although most articles reported statistical methods for within-subject modeling (92%) and for between-subject group modeling (97%), none of the articles reported observed effect sizes for any negative finding (0%). Few articles reported justifications for fixed-effect inferences used for group modeling (3%) and temporal autocorrelations used to account for within-subject variances and correlations (18%). Other under-reported areas included whether and how the task design was optimized for efficiency (22%) and distributions of inter-trial intervals (23%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that substantial improvement in the reporting of observational clinical fMRI studies is required. Poldrack et al.'s guidelines provide a means of improving overall reporting quality. Nonetheless, these guidelines are lengthy and may be at odds with strict word limits for publication; creation of a shortened-version of Poldrack's checklist that contains the most relevant items may be useful in this regard.

Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

PRISMA statement was published in 2009 in order to set standards in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of PRISMA endorsement on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in journals in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology (GH).

METHODS

Quality of reporting and methodological quality were evaluated by assessing the adherence of papers to PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR quality scale. After identifying the GH journals which endorsed PRISMA in instructions for authors (IA), we appraised: 15 papers published in 2012 explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group A); 15 papers from the same journals published in 2012 not explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group B); 30 papers published the year preceding PRISMA endorsement from the same journals as above (Group C); 30 papers published in 2012 on the 10 highest impact factor journals in GH which not endorsed PRISMA (Group D).

RESULTS

PRISMA statement was referred in the IA in 9 out of 70 GH journals (12.9%). We found significant increase in overall adherence to PRISMA checklist (Group A, 90.1%; Group C, 83.1%; p = 0.003) and compliance to AMSTAR scale (Group A, 85.0%; Group C, 74.6%; p = 0.002), following the PRISMA endorsement from the nine GH journals. Explicit referencing of PRISMA in manuscript was not associated with increase in quality of reporting and methodological quality (Group A vs. B, p = 0.651, p = 0.900, respectively). Adherence to PRISMA checklist, and the compliance with AMSTAR were significantly higher in journals endorsing PRISMA compared to those not (Groups A+B vs. D; p = 0.003 and p = 0.016, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The endorsement of PRISMA resulted in increase of both quality of reporting and methodological quality. It is advised that an increasing number of medical journals include PRISMA in the instructions for authors.

Study design and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of chronic idiopathic or autoimmune urticaria: review

Background

The recommended first-line therapy of chronic urticaria is second-generation antihistamines, but the modalities of treatment remains unclear. Numerous recommendations with heterogeneous conclusions have been published. We wondered whether such heterogeneous conclusions were linked to the quality of published studies and their reporting.

Objective

To review the study design and quality of reporting of randomized control trials investigating pharmacological treatment of autoimmune or idiopathic chronic urticaria.

Methodology/Principal Findings

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for pharmacological randomized controlled trials involving patients with chronic autoimmune or idiopathic urticaria, with the main outcome being treatment efficacy. Data were collected on general characteristics of the studies, internal validity, studied treatments, design of the trial, outcome measures and “spin” strategy in interpreting results. Spin was defined as use of specific reporting strategies to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite statistically nonsignificant results. We evaluated 52 articles that met our criteria. Patients were reported as blinded in 42 articles (81%) and the outcome assessor was blinded in 37 (71%). A placebo was the only comparator in 13 (25%) studies. The study duration was <8 weeks in 39 articles (75%), with no follow-up after discontinuation of treatment in 37 (71%). In 4 articles (8%), blinding was clear because they described blinding of the outcome assessor, the treatment was not recognizable (identical or double-dummy) or had no major secondary effects, and computed randomization was centralized. The primary outcome was specified in 33 articles (63%) and was a score in 31. In total, 15 different scores were used. A spin strategy was used for 10 of 12 studies with a nonsignificant primary outcome.

Conclusion

For establishing guidelines in treatment of chronic urticaria, studies should focus on choosing clinically relevant and reproducible primary outcomes, long-term follow-up, limited use of placebo and avoiding spin strategies.

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.

Efficacy of cosmetic products in cellulite reduction: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The number of original articles investigating the efficacy of cosmetic products in cellulite reduction increased rapidly in the last decade; however, to our knowledge, no systematic review and meta-analysis has been performed so far.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review of in vivo studies on humans adopting the PRISMA guidelines. Moreover, we used a meta-analytic approach to estimate the overall effect of cosmetic creams in cellulite treatment from controlled trials with more than 10 patients per arm, using thigh circumference reduction as the outcome measure.

METHODS

Medline and Embase were searched up to August 2012 to identify eligible studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-one original studies were included in the present systematic review. All studies were clinical trials, most of them recruited women only and 67% had an intra-patient study design. About half of the active cosmetic creams tested only contained one active ingredient among xanthenes, herbals or retinoids. The other studies tested cosmetic creams with more complex formulations and most of them included xanthenes. A total of seven controlled trials satisfied the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The pooled mean difference of thigh circumference reduction between the treated and the controlled group was -0.46 cm (95% confidence intervals, CI: -0.85, -0.08), with significant heterogeneity between studies (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This article provides a systematic evaluation of the scientific evidence of the efficacy of cosmetic products in cellulite reduction and supports a moderate efficacy in thigh circumference reduction.

A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature

Background

Reporting guidelines have been available for the past 17 years since the inception of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. These guidelines were developed to improve the quality of reporting of studies in medical literature. Despite the widespread availability of these guidelines, the quality of reporting of medical literature remained suboptimal. In this study, we assess the current adherence practice to reporting guidelines; determine key factors associated with better adherence to these guidelines; and provide recommendations to enhance adherence to reporting guidelines for future studies.

Methods

We undertook a systematic scoping review of systematic reviews of adherence to reporting guidelines across different clinical areas and study designs. We searched four electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline) from January 1996 to September 2012. Studies were included if they addressed adherence to one of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND), Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). A protocol for this study was devised. A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors in duplicate. This study reporting follows the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Our search retrieved 5159 titles, of which 50 were eligible. Overall, 86.0% of studies reported suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with better adherence included journal impact factor and endorsement of guidelines, publication date, funding source, multisite studies, pharmacological interventions and larger studies.

Conclusion

Reporting guidelines in the clinical literature are important to improve the standards of reporting of clinical studies; however, adherence to these guidelines remains suboptimal. Action is therefore needed to enhance the adherence to these standards. Strategies to enhance adherence include journal editorial policies endorsing these guidelines.

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.

Dealing with heterogeneous populations in randomized wound trials: challenges and potential solutions

Chronic wounds have a great variety of etiologies and manifestations that influence wound healing. Such heterogeneity potentially threatens the validity and clinical usefulness of trials if not considered appropriately. In 82 randomized wound trials retrieved from 10 Cochrane reviews, we assessed if and how authors considered wound and other prognostically important characteristics in the conduct and analysis of wound trials. We assessed whether these characteristics were discussed, reflected in the eligibility criteria, used for prestratification or for adjustments to ensure comparability of treatment groups, and whether subgroup analyses were conducted to identify heterogeneity of treatment effects. Nine percent of all trials explicitly discussed characteristics that influence wound healing in the introduction and 43% in the Discussion section. Ninety percent of trials had at least one prognostically important characteristic as eligibility criterion. Only 11% of trials used prestratification, and 6% adjusted the results for imbalances between treatment groups. Twenty-seven percent performed subgroup analyses with prognostically important characteristics defining subgroups. Chronic wound trials use simple randomization, but rarely adapt the study design and analysis to take the heterogeneity of patients into consideration. Collaborative multicenter trials would overcome many of the limitations and provide statistical power to detect important treatment effects both overall and in subgroups.

Funding source and research report quality in nutrition practice-related research

BACKGROUND

The source of funding is one of many possible causes of bias in scientific research. One method of detecting potential for bias is to evaluate the quality of research reports. Research exploring the relationship between funding source and nutrition-related research report quality is limited and in other disciplines the findings are mixed.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to determine whether types of funding sources of nutrition research are associated with differences in research report quality.

DESIGN

A retrospective study of research reporting quality, research design and funding source was conducted on 2539 peer reviewed research articles from the American Dietetic Association's Evidence Analysis Library® database.

RESULTS

Quality rating frequency distributions indicate 43.3% of research reports were rated as positive, 50.1% neutral, and 6.6% as negative. Multinomial logistic regression results showed that while both funding source and type of research design are significant predictors of quality ratings (χ2 = 118.99, p≤0.001), the model's usefulness in predicting overall research report quality is little better than chance. Compared to research reports with government funding, those not acknowledging any funding sources, followed by studies with University/hospital funding were more likely to receive neutral vs positive quality ratings, OR = 1.85, P <0.001 and OR = 1.54, P<0.001, respectively and those that did not report funding were more likely to receive negative quality ratings (OR = 4.97, P<0.001). After controlling for research design, industry funded research reports were no more likely to receive a neutral or negative quality rating than those funded by government sources.

CONCLUSION

Research report quality cannot be accurately predicted from the funding source after controlling for research design. Continued vigilance to evaluate the quality of all research regardless of the funding source and to further understand other factors that affect quality ratings are warranted.

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.

[What's new in dermatological treatments?]

Although the isolated clinical cases published are sometimes helpful in individual situations in which the therapeutic options have been exhausted, this type of publication cannot be generalized. For this reason, the selection presented covering the period from November 2009 to October 2010 is to a very large extent based on controlled trials, either because they contribute important information or because they raise great hope for a significant number of patients. For the first time in cutaneous oncology, a treatment (ipilimumab) has significantly increased overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma (phase III), although this gain remains modest (4-6 months) and adverse immunological effects are frequent (30-40%). A phase I trial with treatment specifically targeting the mutant BRAF protein has shown an objective response in 81% of the patients treated in the metastatic phase of melanoma, thus allowing its development to be pursued. Grouping two studies in a rare tumor such as dermatofibrosarcoma also gives hope with imatinib as a neoadjuvant treatment when the initial tumor is inoperable, with, however, an inconsistent response of approximately 50% and only if the tumor presents reorganization of chromosomes 17 and 22. Cutaneous inflammatory diseases are still dominated by dual therapies in psoriasis, with, notably, an effectiveness trial on etanercept at different doses not showing a difference in efficacy depending on dose for the joint component of psoriasis, but also by the publication of a direct comparison of two dual therapies, ustekinumab versus etanercept. In atopic dermatitis, a controversial article invites one to reflect upon the progress made in the management of children by clinical nurses, as in the Netherlands and in Great Britain, in an attempt to contend with the shortage of dermatologists. Since the use of biotherapies is not the prerogative of psoriasis, infliximab was assessed in a phase II trial in Verneuil disease without demonstrating significant efficacy on the main criterion, but it did show a tendency to reduce the score used. This trial suffered from a weakness both in methodology and statistical power, thus precluding any conclusion. The rarity of therapeutic trials on drug eruptions warrants their mention. A French phase II study gives a glimpse of a trend toward efficacy in terms of survival in the treatment of toxic epidermal necrolysis with cyclosporine. As for infectious dermatosis and sexually transmitted infections, a French multicenter study has shown significantly higher efficacy with ivermectin than with malathion in treating pediculosis without increasing the side effects. Today, however, this systemic treatment cannot be a first-line treatment outside of certain specific situations. A large cohort study (somewhat unsatisfactory in its methodology) has not demonstrated the teratogenicity of antiherpes treatments in 830,000 infants. In prevention of HIV transmission, no microbicidal gel had shown efficacy to date. This has now been accomplished in South Africa with a 1% tenofovir gel. The results of a preliminary trial on therapeutic vaccination against HPV16 proposed to women who are carriers of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia opens the way for wide vaccine therapy of cutaneous virus-induced neoplasia. In conclusion, several articles analyzing the dermatology literature provide an opportunity to reflect on the quality of such articles, Boutron's being absolutely in-dis-pen-sa-ble!

Sample size calculation in physical medicine and rehabilitation: a systematic review of reporting, characteristics, and results in randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess systematically the reporting of sample size calculation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 5 leading journals in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R).

DATA SOURCES

The data source was full reports of RCTs in 5 leading PM&R journals (Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Clinical Rehabilitation, and Disability and Rehabilitation) between January and December of 1998 and 2008. Articles were identified in Medline.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 111 articles met our inclusion criteria, which include RCTs of human studies in the 5 selected journals.

DATA EXTRACTION

Sample size calculation reporting and trial characteristics were collected for each trial by independent investigators.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In 2008, 57.3% of articles reported sample size calculation as compared with only 3.4% in 1998. The parameters that were commonly used were a power of 80% and alpha of 5%. Articles often failed to report effect size or effect estimates for sample size calculation. Studies reporting sample size calculation were more likely to describe the main outcome and to have a sample size greater than 50 subjects. The study outcome (positive vs negative) was not associated with the likelihood of sample size reporting. Trial characteristics of the 2 periods (1998 vs 2008) were similar except that in 1998 there were more negative studies compared with 2008.

CONCLUSIONS

Although sample size calculation reporting has improved dramatically in 10 years and is comparable with other fields in medicine, it is still not adequate given current publication guidelines.