Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating an Enteral or Parenteral Nutrition Intervention in Critical Illness According to the CONSORT Statement: A Systematic Review and Recommendation of Minimum Standard Reporting Criteria

Nathan Seddon · Lee‐anne S. Chapple · Oana Alina Tatucu-Babet · Emma Jean Ridley

6 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition

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 Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Abstract

Lack of reporting consistency is common in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care nutrition. This impacts synthesis and interpretation and may misinform clinical practice. The objective was to evaluate reporting of parallel-group RCTs of enteral or parenteral nutrition interventions in critically ill adults against the recommendations in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines and a priori-defined nutrition criteria. A systematic search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL was conducted to identify RCTs published from January 2011 to February 14, 2020. The primary outcome was the percentage of CONSORT criteria "completely met" (a score of 1) from all included studies (out of a total possible score of 37). Secondary outcomes included the percentage of CONSORT criteria that were "partially" or "not met" and the percentage of a priori-defined nutrition criteria that were "completely," "partially," or "not met" (adjusted to reflect criteria applicable to the paper). Data are presented as mean (standard deviation). Comparisons of normally distributed continuous data were made using a t-test (P < .05). Of 18,969 articles identified, 56 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 60% (19%) of the eligible CONSORT criteria were "completely met," 20% (9%) "partially met," and 20% (15%) "not met." For the nutrition criteria, 41% (20%) of the eligible criteria were "completely met," 25% (14%) "partially met," and 34% (17%) "not met." Reporting against CONSORT guidelines was variable and often incomplete in relation to important a priori-defined nutrition variables.

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 — 6 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2010CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2006Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review 2018Why all randomised controlled trials produce biased results 2019A Core Outcome Set for Critical Care Ventilation Trials 2002Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in the intensive care literature

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.