Examining the adherence to CONSORT guidelines and the reporting of the enrollment process in clinical oncology randomized controlled trials: A review of trials published between 2013 and 2015.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e14026 Background: Due to eligibility criteria, most, if not all, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclude patients at the outset, before randomization. Understanding which patients are excluded is important to evaluate the external validity of the results. The proportion of trials that report the entire flow diagram of patient enrollment, in accordance with the CONSORT 2010 statement, is unknown. Failure to do so makes it more difficult to discuss the generalizability of the trial findings. Methods: We performed the systematic retrieval and analysis of all phases II and III RCTs published in paper form between 2013 and 2015, in four high impact factor journals, in the field of clinical oncology. Our main objective was to determine the proportion of trials that report the number of patients assessed for eligibility before randomization. We further aimed to identify the variables that affect this reporting as well as the reasons for patient exclusion, to calculate the recruitment fraction and the number needed to screen and to determine the proportion of trials that include a discussion on the generalizability of the trial findings. Results: 462 RCTs were reviewed. Among them, 426 (92.2%) included the flow diagram in the article and 224 (48.5%) reported the number of patients assessed for eligibility. This proportion varied significantly between the journals studied, but it did not increase over time. A total of 116 (25.1%) included a discussion of generalizability. Among the trials that reported the entire enrollment process, the reason for patient exclusion could not be found in 50 (22.3%). Conclusions: There is still room for improvement in the reporting of the determinants of external validity in clinical oncology RCTs. Increasing the reporting of the enrollment process could help clinicians and health policy makers establish to whom the results of a trial apply.
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 | 0.638 | 0.812 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| 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".