Cited by 397Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsDelphi Technique in Research

Quality of Reporting of Randomized Trials as a Measure of Methodologic Quality

Huwiler-Müntener, Karin·2002·JAMA

Abstract

Context The evaluation of the methodologic quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is central to evidence-based health care. Important methodologic detail may, however, be omitted from published reports, and the quality of reporting is therefore often used as a proxy measure for methodologic quality. We examined the relationship between reporting quality and methodologic quality of published RCTs. Methods Study of 60 reports of placebo-controlled trials published in English-language journals from 1985 to 1997. Reporting quality was measured using a 25-item scale based on the 1996 issue of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Concealment of allocation, appropriate blinding, and analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle were indicators of methodologic quality. Methodologic quality was compared between groups of trials defined by reporting quality scores of low, intermediate, and high. Reporting quality scores were compared between groups defined by high and low methodologic quality. Results Among 23 trials of low reporting quality (median score, 9 [range, 3.5-10.5]), allocation concealment was unclear for all but 1 trial, but there were 16 trials (70%) with adequate blinding and 9 trials (39%) that had been analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Among 18 trials of high reporting quality (median score, 18 [range 16.5-22.0]), there were 8 trials (44%) with adequate allocation concealment, 16 trials (89%) with adequate blin…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.287.21.2801

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Adequate reporting of quality indicators is a validated measure of the quality of trial conduct, strongly related to the internal validity of randomized controlled trials.

    “Adequate reporting of quality indicators is a validated measure of the quality of trial conduct, strongly related to the internal validity of randomized controlled trials (51).”

    From Effects of Fibrates in Kidney Disease (2012) · cites this paper as [51]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huwiler-Müntener, K.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2002-06-05
Volume
287
Issue
21
Pages
2801
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1965476565
Cited by
397
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 24
FWCI
30.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
reporting quality, methodological quality, randomized controlled trials, CONSORT, allocation concealment, blinding, intention-to-treat analysis
MeSH terms
Publishing, Quality Control, Writing, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review