Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Restless Legs Syndrome Based on the CONSORT Statement

Abstract

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of modern medical research, and their reporting may not always be optimal. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is an evidence-based means to improve the quality of RCTs' reporting by providing a checklist of recommended items. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of published RCTs on the restless legs syndrome (RLS), based on a checklist arising from the CONSORT statement. Methods: Medical electronic databases were searched for RCTs involving patients with RLS. Inclusion criteria were follows: articles must have been published in English and RLS patients must have been randomized into a minimum of two treatment cohorts of different medicinal orientations. CONSORT-recommended items were marked as "reported" or "not reported," and an overall CONSORT compliance metric was calculated. Comparisons among different time periods, CONSORT-endorsing and non-endorsing, and different levels of impact factor journals were made. Results: Fifty-four eligible trials, published in 21 different scientific journals, were found. The average CONSORT compliance score was 56.6% (23.68-84.21%). CONSORT-endorsing journals had a mean CONSORT compliance of 58.47%, whereas non-endorsing journals had a mean CONSORT compliance of 50.4%. The median CONSORT compliance for articles published in low-(IF<2), medium-(IF 2-7), and high-ranked (IF>7) journals was 52.63, 56.57, and 59.21%, respectively. Only 14 of the 38 CONSORT items (36.8%) were reported in >75% of the articles. Discussion: This study shows that the reporting of RLS-related RCTs is suboptimal, regardless of the time period, the quality of the publishing journal, and the endorsing or non-endorsing of the CONSORT statement.

A Review of Adherence and Predictors of Adherence to the CONSORT Statement in the Reporting of Tuberculosis Vaccine Trials

“…Although the CONSORT statement does not specify what percentage of reported items should be considered adequate reporting, we defined adequate reporting using the definition used in previous studies [ 20 , 21 ]. We considered reporting to be adequate in each trial if the trial reported at least 75% of the items on the CONSORT 2010 checklist applicable to the trial.…”

“…The number of articles that would have adequate reporting of the CONSORT items was used for sample size estimation. Assuming that 57% of the studies would have adequate reporting based on a previous study [ 21 ], according to a priori sample size determination, a sample size of 105 was required to get a precision of ±10% and a sample size of 128 would give precision of ±9%. In our study, we obtained a sample of 124 studies.…”

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of randomized trials within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for RAndomized Trials in Endodontics (PRIRATE) 2020 quality standard checklist

“…2018, Rikos et al . 2019). Similarly, an evaluation of randomized clinical trials across several Dental specialties highlighted multiple reporting inadequacies and recommended that this was a priority area for improvement (Saltaji et al .…”

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias

“…Naturally, randomized, sham-controlled studies must be preferred, and it is imperative that clinical trials in the future are of high quality, in order to provide solid evidence for the efficacy of rTMS. Finally, as has been shown, several published trials in various disorders are of suboptimal quality [82,83], a fact that limits the applicability of their results. Indeed, several of the aforementioned studies had several vital parts of their methodology inadequately reported.…”