MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069435458 · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-s1-a47

The influence of CONSORT on the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials: an updated review

2011· article· en· W2069435458 on OpenAlexaff
Lucy Turner, David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Laura Weeks, Jodi Peters, Amy C. Plint, Douglas G. Altman, Kenneth F. Schulz

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsMedicineChecklistRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicineCritical appraisalResearch designQuality (philosophy)MEDLINEFamily medicineMedical physicsPsychologySurgeryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement was developed in response to concerns about the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The checklist is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations for reporting RCTs, intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of RCTs and aid in their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, Plint and colleagues published a systematic review examining the effectiveness of CONSORT for improving the reporting of RCTs in journals that have formally endorsed the guidance (i.e. at minimum recommend that authors use CONSORT) [ 1 ]. Despite poor methodology of some included studies, use of CONSORT was found to be associated with improvement in the quality of reporting of RCTs. To update Plint et al.’s systematic review assessing the influence of the CONSORT Statement’s checklist (2001) on the quality of reporting of RCTs. Conventional systematic review methods employed in the original review by Plint et al. have been implemented. The search for new studies spanned August 2005 – March 2010. Two independent reviewers screened studies for eligibility; extraction and validity assessment of studies were conducted by a single reviewer and a second reviewer performed verification. Reporting quality was assessed by comparing the proportion of RCTs adhering to individual CONSORT items or a total sum score between comparison groups. Of 2896 possibly relevant studies, 53 reports of 50 quasi-experimental studies have been included, compared to 8 in the earlier review. In total these studies assessed adherence to CONSORT in 16,222 RCTs. When comparing reporting in RCTs of CONSORT endorsing journals with CONSORT non-endorsing journals; 25 of 27 outcomes yield higher relative reporting of these items in endorsing journals, of which 7 were statistically significant. The largest positive effect, across 16 studies, showed that reporting of allocation concealment was 81% greater in CONSORT endorsing journals (RR = 1.81, 95%CI 1.37 to 2.40). There is no evidence to suggest that CONSORT endorsement has a detrimental influence on the quality of reporting of RCTs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.940
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.953
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.9400.953
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0260.006
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.951
GPT teacher head0.656
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designRandomized trial
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207