Determining the reporting quality of RCTs in clinical pharmacology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) are recommendations for improving the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which clinical pharmacology journals implement specific CONSORT recommendations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of RCTs published between May 2002 and May 2003 in four clinical pharmacology journals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of RCTs that published a participant flow diagram and that reported on randomization and restriction methods, allocation concealment, blinding, intention-to-treat analysis, ethical considerations, adverse events and source of funding. RESULTS: Of 482 clinical trials, 193 were RCTs. Healthy participants were involved in 129 [66.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 59.9, 73.1] trials, patients who required treatment in 61 (31.6%, 95% CI 25.4, 38.4) trials and both in three (1.6%, 95% CI 0.5, 4.4) trials. The following items were infrequently reported: sequence generation (17%), allocation concealment (3%), use of restriction (16%), description of blinding (26%), and flow diagrams of study participants (2%). In contrast, the following areas were often reported: use of intention-to-treat analysis (79%), description of withdrawals (92.2%) and description of adverse events (71%), ethics review (94%) and informed consent (95%). Sources of funding were reported in 56% of studies. CONCLUSION: The use of the selected CONSORT items is limited in these journals, possibly as many items may not be relevant to the types of studies published in clinical pharmacology journals. Further efforts are required to determine the applicability of CONSORT to RCTs in clinical pharmacology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.814 | 0.924 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".