CONSORT item adherence in top ranked anaesthesiology journals in 2011

Nils H. Münter · Ana Kowark · Rolf Rossaint · Christian Stoppe · Robert David Sanders · Mark Coburn

15 citations0/0 files storedEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Publishing and Open Access Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.

References

2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement 2001Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials 2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2010Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes 2010The quality of reports of randomised trials in 2000 and 2006: comparative study of articles indexed in PubMed 2004Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group

Cited by

2016Reporting of planned statistical methods in published surgical randomised trial protocols: a protocol for a methodological systematic review

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.