CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Adherence of Randomized Controlled Trials to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Guidelines: A Survey of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 2011-2016 in 3 Periodontology Journals

Siddiq, Hanan, Pentapati, Kalyana-Chakravarthy, Acharya, Shashidhar·2019·Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice
DOI 10.1016/j.jebdp.2019.04.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JCP), Journal of Periodontology (JOP), and Journal of Periodontal Research (JPR), published in the years 2011 until 2016, using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines.Methods A thorough search of PubMed for RCTs published between January 2011 and December 2016 in the three journals was carried out. The CONSORT 2010 checklist (36 questions) was used to evaluate the adherence of these RCTs to these guidelines. A modified CONSORT score was calculated and categorized as "perfect" (100%), "excellent" (80%-99%), "good" (60%-79%), "modest" (40%-59%), and "poor" (<40%).Results A total of 369 RCTs were published in the three periodontology journals from 2011 until 2016. Based on the modified CONSORT score among all the RCTs, title, abstract, and introduction sections of the included RCTs showed good adherence to the CONSORT 2010 guidelines (60%-79%), whereas the adherence was poor for half the items in methodology (<40%), results (<40%), and discussion (40%). The highest modified CONSORT score was obtained for the trials published in the JCP from 2011 to 2016, whereas the lowest score was achieved by the RCTs in the JPR. Overall, none of the RCTs in any of the journals were perfect in reporting the trials as per the guidelines. Almost half of the RCTs in the JCP showed good adherence (51.1%), whereas almost three-fourths of the RCTs in the JOP (72%) and JPR (82.7%) showed modest to poor adherence as per the reporting guidelines (P < .001).Conclusion Among the three periodontology journals assessed, the JCP showed better adherence than the JOP and JPR from 2011 until 2016.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jebdp.2019.04.001

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Similar adherence to the CONSORT Statement (60-70%) has been previously observed in RCT evaluations published from 2011 to 2016 in three different journals of periodontology.

    “Without focusing on a specific topic, similar adherence to the CONSORT Statement has been previously observed in RCT evaluations published from 2011 to 2016 in three different journals of periodontology (60–70%) (Siddiq et al. 2019).”

    From Adherence to the CONSORT statement of randomized clinical trials on dentin hypersensitivity treatment using mouthwashes (2025) · cites this paper as Siddiq et al. 2019

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Siddiq, H., Pentapati, K.-C., & Acharya, S.
Affiliations
Manipal Academy of Higher Education (IN)
Corresponding author
Pentapati, Kalyana-Chakravarthy
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
260-272
ISSN
1532-3382 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jebdp.2019.04.001
OpenAlex
W2938171880
Cited by
23
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
CONSORT 2010, reporting quality, randomized controlled trials
MeSH terms
Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guideline Adherence, Checklist

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