Cited by 59Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Quality of Reports on Randomized Controlled Trials Conducted in Japan: Evaluation of Adherence to the CONSORT Statement

Open access
Uetani, Kae, Nakayama, Takeo, Ikai, Hiroshi, Yonemoto, Naohiro, Moher, David·2009·Internal Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports. We assessed the quality of current Japanese RCT reports by conducting a cross-sectional study to examine the extent to which they adhere to the CONSORT statement. METHODS: Reports of RCTs conducted in Japan that were published in medical journals between January and March 2004 were sampled from MEDLINE. The proportion of adherence to each item in the CONSORT checklist was evaluated for each report. Additionally, information on ethics reporting and funding sources was collected. RESULTS: A total of 98 RCT reports from Japan were evaluated, and adherence to the CONSORT statement was found to be suboptimal. Only 6 of 29 items in the checklist were described in more than 80% of reports. Adherence to key methodological items of the CONSORT statement was as follows: 23% for sample size determination, 39% for random sequence generation, 17% for allocation concealment, 29% for blinding, 53% for numbers analyzed, and 6% for inclusion of a flow diagram. Adherence to additional items was 82% for ethics committee approval, 92% for receiving informed consent, and 20% for disclosing funding sources. CONCLUSION: Our study on adherence of recent RCT reports from Japan to the CONSORT statement reveals that there is a significant need for improvement. Further investigation on the quality of RCT reports and ways to improve reporting quality is required.

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 · 10.2169/internalmedicine.48.1358

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • The rise in CONSORT scores in recent studies is probably connected to authors' growing familiarity with the CONSORT items.

    “The rise in scores in recent studies is probably connected to authors'growing familiarity with the CONSORT items. This has led to an increase in the number of studies presenting reports with greater detail (Uetani et al. 2009).”

    From Adherence to the CONSORT statement of randomized clinical trials on dentin hypersensitivity treatment using mouthwashes (2025) · cites this paper as Uetani et al. 2009

    The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies unfamiliarity with CONSORT as a likely reason for poor reporting and says that reports in journals adopting CONSORT showed greater adherence. This supports a link between familiarity and more complete reporting, but the paper does not establish that CONSORT scores rose in recent studies or that growing familiarity caused such a rise. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform Re- quirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. Updated October 2007. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Uetani, K., Nakayama, T., Ikai, H., Yonemoto, N., & Moher, D.
Affiliations
  • Kyoto University (JP)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Venue
Internal Medicine
Published
2009
Volume
48
Issue
5
Pages
307-313
ISSN
  • 0918-2918 (ISSN-L)
  • 1349-7235
OpenAlex
W1981096172
Cited by
59
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Ottawa
  • Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
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 statement, reporting quality, randomized controlled trials, reporting guidelines adherence, sample size determination, random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, research ethics approval, funding disclosure, flowcharts
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Japan, Quality Control, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guideline Adherence

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