Completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials including people with transient ischaemic attack or stroke: A systematic review

Blair Wilson · David Moher · Douglas G. Altman · Rustam Al‐Shahi Salman

11 citations0/0 files storedEuropean Stroke Journal

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 Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the adherence of stroke randomised controlled trials to Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines and investigate the factors that are associated with completeness of reporting. METHOD: We took a random sample from the Cochrane Stroke Group's Trial Register of transient ischaemic attack or stroke randomised controlled trials, published in English in 1997-2016 inclusive. Two reviewers assessed the published report of the final primary results of stroke randomised controlled trials with a 10-point truncated Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting checklist to investigate adherence over time, univariable associations and independent associations with total Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting score in a multiple linear regression model. FINDINGS: In this random sample of 177 stroke randomised controlled trials, the mean score on the truncated Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials checklist was 5.8 (SD 2.2); reporting improved from 1997-2000 (4.9 SD 2.0) to 2001-2009 (5.8 SD 2.1) and to 2010-2016 (6.8 SD 2.1). A higher Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials score was independently associated with publication during epochs following a revision of Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines (p < 0.001), journal endorsement of the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials reporting guideline at the time of randomised controlled trial publication (p < 0.001) and modified journal impact factor using median citation distribution (p = 0.012). DISCUSSION: Stroke randomised controlled trial reporting to Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials standards has improved over time, but could be better. CONCLUSION: Registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017072193).

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 — 11 citations exist upstream.

References

2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials 1996Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement 1996Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials 1991Publication bias in clinical research 2001The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials 1997Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research

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.