CONSORT item adherence in top ranked anaesthesiology journals in 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for measuring the efficacy of any medical intervention. The present study assesses the implementation of the CONSORT statement in the top 11 anaesthesiology journals in 2011. OBJECTIVES: We designed this study in order to determine how well authors in the top 11 ranked anaesthesiology journals follow the CONSORT statement's criteria. DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional data analysis. SETTING: The study was performed at the RWTH Aachen University Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Journals included Pain, Anesthesiology, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, European Journal of Pain, Anesthesia and Analgesia, Anaesthesia, Minerva Anestesiologica, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology and the European Journal of Anaesthesiology. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All articles in the online table of contents from the top 11 anaesthesiology journals according to the ISI Web of Knowledge were screened for RCTs published in 2011. The RCTs were assessed using the CONSORT checklist. We also analysed the correlation between the number of citations and the adherence to CONSORT items. RESULTS: We evaluated 319 RCTs and found that, more than ten years after the publication of the CONSORT statement, the RCTs satisfied a median of 60.0% of the CONSORT criteria. Only 72.1% of the articles presented clearly defined primary and secondary outcome parameters. The number of citations is only weakly associated with the fulfilment of the CONSORT statement (r = 0.023). CONCLUSION: Adherence to the CONSORT criteria remains low in top-ranked anaesthesiology journals. We found only a very weak correlation between the number of citations and fulfilment of the requirements of the CONSORT statement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.220 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads 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".