Cited by 35Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAcademic Publishing and Open AccessAcademic Writing and Publishing

Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Open access
Speich, Benjamin, Schroter, Sara, Briel, Matthias, Moher, David, Puebla, Iratxe, Clark, Alejandra, Maia Schlüssel, Michael, Ravaud, Philippe +2 more·2020·BMJ Open

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Transparent and accurate reporting is essential for readers to adequately interpret the results of a study. Journals can play a vital role in improving the reporting of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We describe an RCT to evaluate our hypothesis that asking peer reviewers to check whether the most important and poorly reported CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) items are adequately reported will result in higher adherence to CONSORT guidelines in published RCTs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Manuscripts presenting the primary results of RCTs submitted to participating journals will be randomised to either the intervention group (peer reviewers will receive a reminder and short explanation of the 10 most important and poorly reported CONSORT items; they will be asked to check if these items are reported in the submitted manuscript) or a control group (usual journal practice). The primary outcome will be the mean proportion of the 10 items that are adequately reported in the published articles. Peer reviewers and manuscript authors will not be informed of the study hypothesis, design or intervention. Outcomes will be assessed in duplicate from published articles by two data extractors (at least one blinded to the intervention). We will enrol eligible manuscripts until a minimum of 83 articles per group (166 in total) are published. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This pragmatic RCT was approved by the Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee of the University of Oxford (R62779/RE001). If this intervention is effective, it could be implemented by all medical journals without requiring large additional resources at journal level. Findings will be disseminated through presentations in relevant conferences and peer-reviewed publications. This trial is registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/c4hn8).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035114

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Speich, B., Schroter, S., Briel, M., Moher, D., Puebla, I., Clark, A., Maia Schlüssel, M., Ravaud, P., Boutron, I., & Hopewell, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • BMJ Group (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Public Library of Science (US)
  • Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Speich, Benjamin
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-03
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
e035114
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3006856936
Cited by
35
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (P300PB_177933)
  • University of Ottawa
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
Keywords
CONSORT checklist, reporting quality, randomized controlled trials, peer reviewers, peer review, reporting guidelines adherence, biomedical journals
MeSH terms
Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Peer Review, Research, 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