Cited by 84Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Reporting of participant flow diagrams in published reports of randomized trials

Open access
Hopewell, Sally, Hirst, Allison, Collins, Gary S, Mallett, Sue, Yu, Ly-Mee, Altman, Douglas G·2011·Trials

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reporting of the flow of participants through each stage of a randomized trial is essential to assess the generalisability and validity of its results. We assessed the type and completeness of information reported in CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) flow diagrams published in current reports of randomized trials. METHODS: A cross sectional review of all primary reports of randomized trials which included a CONSORT flow diagram indexed in PubMed core clinical journals (2009). We assessed the proportion of parallel group trial publications reporting specific items recommended by CONSORT for inclusion in a flow diagram. RESULTS: Of 469 primary reports of randomized trials, 263 (56%) included a CONSORT flow diagram of which 89% (237/263) were published in a CONSORT endorsing journal. Reports published in CONSORT endorsing journals were more likely to include a flow diagram (62%; 237/380 versus 29%; 26/89). Ninety percent (236/263) of reports which included a flow diagram had a parallel group design, of which 49% (116/236) evaluated drug interventions, 58% (137/236) were multicentre, and 79% (187/236) compared two study groups, with a median sample size of 213 participants. Eighty-one percent (191/236) reported the overall number of participants assessed for eligibility, 71% (168/236) the number excluded prior to randomization and 98% (231/236) the overall number randomized. Reasons for exclusion prior to randomization were more poorly reported. Ninety-four percent (223/236) reported the number of participants allocated to each arm of the trial. However, only 40% (95/236) reported the number who actually received the allocated intervention, 67% (158/236) the number lost to follow up in each arm of the trial, 61% (145/236) whether participants discontinued the intervention during the trial and 54% (128/236) the number included in the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of published reports of randomized trials included a diagram showing the flow of participants through the trial. However, information was often missing from published flow diagrams, even in articles published in CONSORT endorsing journals. If important information is not reported it can be difficult and sometimes impossible to know if the conclusions of that trial are justified by the data presented.

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 · 10.1186/1745-6215-12-253

Cites

21 of 21 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?

  • A review of RCTs published in five leading general and internal medicine journals found that reporting was considerably more thorough in articles that included a diagram of the flow of participants through a trial, as recommended by CONSORT.

    “A review of RCTs published in five leading general and internal medicine journals found that reporting was considerably more thorough in articles that included a diagram of the flow of participants through a trial, as recommended by CONSORT.70”

    From CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. (2016) · cites this paper as [70]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Hopewell, S., Hirst, A., Collins, G. S., Mallett, S., Yu, L.-M., & Altman, D. G.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Hopewell, Sally
Venue
Trials
Published
2011-12
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
253-253
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2154833223
Cited by
84
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
4.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Université Paris Descartes
  • Medical Research Council (MC_qA137931)
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 › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
CONSORT, reporting quality, clinical trial registration, participant attrition, loss to follow-up, generalizability of trial results, pharmacological interventions
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Publications, Research Design, 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