Clinical Trials in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: Applying the CONSORT Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine how well therapeutic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology (JPP) met the CONSORT criteria as compared to pediatric trials in the Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology (JCCP), which served as a control. METHODS: Nine trials were found in JPP and 19 clinical trials were retrieved from JCCP. The modified Consort Checklist and Flow Chart was applied to each trial by two unblinded independent raters. RESULTS: The number of CONSORT items not reported between the two journals was strikingly similar. One half (11/22) of the CONSORT items were reported less than 25% of the time. Information provided on the flow of participants in the trials was similar across the two journals; however, JCCP more often reported on those assessed to be eligible overall, chi(2) = 5.241, p <.05. JPP reported on recruitment 33.3% of the time, while it was not reported at all in JCCP, chi(2) = 7.093, p <.05. CONCLUSIONS: Although many of the items in the CONSORT statement were not adhered to by the two psychological journals, most of the CONSORT items can clearly be applied to psychosocial trials.
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 | 0.723 | 0.789 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".