Original articleThe reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist
Introduction
Health-care providers depend upon authors and editors to report essential methodological factors in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to allow determination of trial validity (i.e., likelihood that the trial results are unbiased) [1]. In an attempt to remedy documented suboptimal reporting of RCTs 2, 3 one international group has developed the “Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials” (CONSORT) [4]. The CONSORT statement has gained wide support. In particular, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the Council of Science Editors (CSE) from which hundreds of journals seek guidance have all endorsed CONSORT. To determine the quality of reporting in RCTs since the publication of the CONSORT statement, we undertook a study evaluating the reporting of 11 methodological factors in recent RCTs. We also assessed the impact of a journal policy to promote adherence to the CONSORT checklist (as distinct from the CONSORT statement that includes both a checklist and a flow diagram).
Section snippets
Study RCTs
Three secondary journals (i.e., journals that publish summaries of studies previously published in a wide variety of journals), the American College of Physicians (ACP) Journal Club, Journal Watch, and Internal Medicine Alert, provided the source for original full-text RCTs. We included studies that had investigators who specified they randomly allocated patients to experimental and control interventions, addressed a question of therapy or prevention, had internal medicine content (i.e., any
Overall reporting
We evaluated 105 RCTs published in 29 journals. The median year in which the RCTs were published in both the CONSORT-promoting and non-CONSORT-promoting groups was 1997. Table 1 presents the reporting of the individual methodological factors in the 105 RCTs. The RCTs reported five of the methodological factors >50% of the time and six factors <50% of the time.
Promoting adherence to CONSORT checklist
Twenty-six of the 29 editors completed the survey (response rate: 90%). The 98 RCTs published in these 26 journals (Table 2) provided the
Discussion
We found that while promotion of the CONSORT checklist is indeed associated with improved reporting, there remains suboptimal reporting even among CONSORT-promoting journals (an average of 6.4 of 11 key methodological factors in an analysis that adjusted for the impact factor of the journal).
Our study has a number of strengths. We evaluated RCTs from a wide variety of journals. We had an equal distribution of RCTs from journals that did and did not promote adherence to the CONSORT checklist.
Acknowledgements
Dr. P.J. Devereaux is supported by a Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada/Canadian Institutes of Health Research Fellowship Award. Dr. William Ghali is supported by a Population Health Investigator Award from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research and holds a Government of Canada Research Chair in health services research.
References (20)
- et al.
Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?
Lancet
(1998) Blinding during data analysis and writing of manuscripts
Control Clin Trials
(1996)Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blinded trials of nonsteroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis
Control Clin Trials
(1989)- et al.
Users' guides to the medical literature, II. How to use an article about therapy and prevention, Aare the results of the study valid?
JAMA
(1993) - et al.
Reporting on methods in clinical trials
N Engl J Med
(1982) - et al.
Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals
JAMA
(1994) - et al.
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement
JAMA
(1996) - et al.
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials
JAMA
(1995) - et al.
Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials
JAMA
(2001) - et al.
Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials
JAMA
(2001)