Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in General Endocrinology Literature

Lorena P Rios · Adefowope O. Odueyungbo · Misha O. Moitri · Mohammed O. Rahman · Lehana Thabane

87 citations0/0 files storedThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

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 Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

CONTEXT: The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is poor in general medicine and several areas of specialization but unknown in endocrinology. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the reporting quality of RCTs in general endocrinology. A secondary objective was to identify predictors for better reporting quality. DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically reviewed RCTs published in three general endocrinology journals between January 2005 and December 2006. PARTICIPANTS: We included parallel-design RCTs that addressed a question of treatment or prevention. Article selection and data abstraction were conducted by two reviewers independently, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. MAIN OUTCOMES: There were two main outcomes: 1) a 15-point overall reporting quality score (OQS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT); and 2) a 3-point key score, based on allocation concealment, blinding, and use of intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Eighty nine RCTs were included. The median OQS was 10 (interquartile range = 2). Allocation concealment, blinding, and analysis by intention to treat were reported in 10, 20, and 16 of the 89 RCTs, respectively. A multivariable regression analysis showed that complete industrial funding [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.014; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.010-1.018], journal of publication (IRR = 1.068; 95% CI, 1.007-1.132), and sample size (IRR = 1.048; 95% CI, 1.026-1.070) were significantly associated with a slightly better OQS. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of RCT reporting in general endocrine literature is suboptimal. We discuss our results, highlight the areas where improvements are needed, and provide some recommendations.

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 — 87 citations exist upstream.

References

2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 1995Empirical Evidence of Bias 1995Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials 2001The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration 1998Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?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

Cited by

2014Oncology trial abstracts showed suboptimal improvement in reporting: a comparative before-and-after evaluation using CONSORT for Abstract guidelines 2019The reporting of progression criteria in protocols of pilot trials designed to assess the feasibility of main trials is insufficient: a meta-epidemiological study 2011Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Reporting in the Treatment of Sarcomas 2010Randomized Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (1997–2007): An Assessment of Reporting Quality with a CONSORT‐ and STRICTA‐Based Instrument

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.