Cited by 25Academic Publishing and Open AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsResearch Data Management Practices

Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials

Open access
Kapp, Philipp, Esmail, Laura, Ghosn, Lina, Ravaud, Philippe, Boutron, Isabelle·2022·BMC Medicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision-making. We aimed (1) to assess and compare the reporting characteristics of RCTs between preprints and peer-reviewed publications and (2) to assess whether reporting improves after the peer review process for all preprints subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. Methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and L·OVE COVID-19 platform to identify all reports of RCTs assessing pharmacological treatments of COVID-19, up to May 2021. We extracted indicators of transparency (e.g., trial registration, data sharing intentions) and assessed the completeness of reporting (i.e., some important CONSORT items, conflict of interest, ethical approval) using a standardized data extraction form. We also identified paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publications. Results: We identified 251 trial reports: 121 (48%) were first published in peer-reviewed journals, and 130 (52%) were first published as preprints. Transparency was poor. About half of trials were prospectively registered ( n = 140, 56%); 38% ( n = 95) made their full protocols available, and 29% ( n = 72) provided access to their statistical analysis plan report. A data sharing statement was reported in 68% ( n = 170) of the reports of which 91% stated their willingness to share. Completeness of reporting was low: only 32% ( n = 81) of trials completely defined the pre-specified primary outcome measures; 57% ( n = 143) reported the process of allocation concealment. Overall, 51% ( n = 127) adequately reported the results for the primary outcomes while only 14% ( n = 36) of trials adequately described harms. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 49% ( n = 104) of trials; of them, only 15% ( n = 16) disclosed outcome switching in the report. There were no major differences between preprints and peer-reviewed publications. Of the 130 RCTs published as preprints, 78 were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the journal peer review process for most items. Conclusions: Transparency, completeness, and consistency of reporting of COVID-19 clinical trials were insufficient both in preprints and peer-reviewed publications. A comparison of paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publication did not indicate major improvement.

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/s12916-022-02567-y

Cites

55 of 55 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

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
Kapp, P., Esmail, L., Ghosn, L., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I.
Affiliations
Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (FR)
Corresponding author
Boutron, Isabelle
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2022-09-26
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
363-363
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4297144044
Cited by
25
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Université Paris Descartes
  • Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
  • Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale
  • Cochrane France
  • Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur, de la Recherche Scientifique et des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communication
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  • The World Health Organization
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, randomized controlled trials, trial reporting quality, preprints, peer review, clinical trial registration, CONSORT, data sharing, allocation concealment, conflicts of interest, harms reporting, pharmacotherapy, transparency, reporting completeness, reporting consistency, clinical trial registries, statistical analysis plan, primary outcomes
MeSH terms
COVID-19, Humans, Peer Review, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Information Dissemination, Research Report

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