CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 216Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement

Mills, Edward J., Wu, Ping, Gagnier, Joel, Devereaux, P.J.·2005·Contemporary Clinical Trials
DOI 10.1016/j.cct.2005.02.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

If randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are to fulfill their potential to allow health care providers to make informed inferences about the validity of the trials upon which they base their clinical practice, then the reporting of key methodological factors must improve. The revised Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) were developed to improve the suboptimal reporting of RCTs. We aimed to determine the extent to which RCTs report key methodological factors included in the revised CONSORT recommendations following publication of these recommendations. We conducted an observational study of RCTs published between July 2002 and June 2003 in 5 leading general medicine journals. We determined the proportion and 95% confidence intervals of RCTs that reported sequence generation, allocation concealment, randomization implementation, blinding status of participants, health care providers, outcome assessors, and data analysts, sample size justification, method of analysis (e.g. intention-to-treat), and a participant flow diagram. We included a total of 253 RCTs. RCTs reported: sequence generation 80% (95% CI 75-80%), allocation concealment 48% (95% CI 42-54%), randomization implementation 55% (95% CI 49-61%), blinding status of participants 40% (34-46%), health care providers 17% (95% CI 13-22%), outcome assessors 47% (95% CI 41-53%), data analysts 15% (10-19%), sample size justification 83% (95% CI 78-87%), method of analysis 87% (95% CI 83-91%)), and participant flow diagrams 86% (95% CI 82-90%). Although reporting of some CONSORT recommendations is high, reporting of several essential recommendations remains suboptimal. Authors need to comply with and journals need to enforce reporting of the revised CONSORT recommendations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cct.2005.02.008

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 38 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Mills E, Wu P, Gagnier J, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM. Endorsement doesn't mean enforcing CONSORT issues in general medical and specialist journals. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology in press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mills, E. J., Wu, P., Gagnier, J., & Devereaux, P. J.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Mills, Edward J.
ORCID
Venue
Contemporary Clinical Trials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-08
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
480-487
ISSN
1551-7144 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cct.2005.02.008
OpenAlex
W1971252299
Cited by
216
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 57
FWCI
12.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Contemporary Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
CONSORT statement, reporting quality, randomized controlled trials, trial methodology reporting, allocation concealment, blinding, sequence generation, sample size justification, intention-to-treat analysis, medical journals
MeSH terms
Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Research Design, Writing, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Single-Blind Method, Peer Review, Research

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