Reporting in randomized trials published in International Journal of Cardiology in 2011 compared to the recommendations made in CONSORT 2010

Chen, Honglin; Liu, Kun

doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.06.045

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inter-item variability appears globally consistent across other specialties. [20][21][22][23][24][25]28 In our study, over 90% of RCTs adequately reported scientific background and explaining rationale (item 2), reporting objectives or hypotheses (item 5), and interpreting results in the context of current evidence (item 22). This might be considered unsurprising, as these items represent the better recognised and readily achievable standards in the reporting of RCTs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…Similar findings have been found in a wide range of surgical specialties. [20][21][22][23][24]28 Although most RCTs reported at least one aspect described by the item, a common reason for failure to score on an item was a failure to report all aspects highlighted by that item. The least reported item was related to the title and abstract (item 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Yao

Khajuria

Camm

et al. 2014

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 ¼ 0.14, P ¼ 0.29), number of authors (R ¼ 0.01, P ¼ 0.93), or whether the RCT used pairedeye, one-eye, or two-eye designs in their randomisation (P ¼ 0.97). ConclusionsThe reporting of RCTs in ophthalmic surgery is suboptimal. Further work is needed by trial groups, funding agencies, authors, and journals to improve reporting clarity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Yao

Khajuria

Camm

et al. 2014

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar reviews have echoed these findings, highlighting particularly poor reporting of details surrounding randomisation. 2 14–18 Chen and Liu 2 showed that the reporting of methodology in RCTs in a high impact cardiology journal was inadequate, with 70% of studies reporting less than half of methodological items sufficiently, with randomisation and blinding frequently affected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have shown poor reporting standards in RCTs, 1 particularly so in areas concerning trial methodology. 2 3 The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, 4 updated in 2010, aims to improve the quality of reporting clinical trials, allowing results to be better interpreted and critically appraised.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting trends of randomised controlled trials in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) causes significant cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Current consensus guidelines reflect the neutral results from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Adequate trial reporting is a fundamental requirement before concluding on RCT intervention efficacy and is necessary for accurate meta-analysis and to provide insight into future trial design. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement provides a framework for complete trial reporting. Reporting quality of HFpEF RCTs has not been previously assessed, and this represents an important validation of reporting qualities to date.ObjectivesThe aim was to systematically identify RCTs investigating the efficacy of pharmacological therapies in HFpEF and to assess the quality of reporting using the CONSORT 2010 statement.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1996 to November 2015, with RCTs assessing pharmacological therapies on clinical outcomes in HFpEF patients included. The quality of reporting was assessed against the CONSORT 2010 checklist.ResultsA total of 33 RCTs were included. The mean CONSORT score was 55.4% (SD 17.2%). The CONSORT score was strongly correlated with journal impact factor (r=0.53, p=0.003) and publication year (r=0.50, p=0.003). Articles published after the introduction of CONSORT 2010 statement had a significantly higher mean score compared with those published before (64% vs 50%, p=0.02).ConclusionsAlthough the CONSORT score has increased with time, a significant proportion of HFpEF RCTs showed inadequate reporting standards. The level of adherence to CONSORT criteria could have an impact on the validity of trials and hence the interpretation of intervention efficacy. We recommend improving compliance with the CONSORT statement for future RCTs.

show abstract

“…

We welcome the article by Hong-Lin Chen analysing the adherence to the CONSORT 2010 recommendations of the reporting of randomised clinical trials [1]. The CONSORT group has made recommendations designed to improve the quality of reporting of trials and the 2010 update extends these [2].

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reply to the Hong-Lin Chen article on CONSORT (2010) recommendations

Coats¹

2012

International Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reporting in randomized trials published in International Journal of Cardiology in 2011 compared to the recommendations made in CONSORT 2010

Cited by 8 publications

References 30 publications

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

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

Reporting trends of randomised controlled trials in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review

Reply to the Hong-Lin Chen article on CONSORT (2010) recommendations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About