Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2010 May 18:11:59.
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-59.

Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review

Ly-Mee Yu  1 , An-Wen Chan, Sally Hopewell, Jonathan J Deeks, Douglas G Altman
Affiliations
Review

Reporting on covariate adjustment in randomised controlled trials before and after revision of the 2001 CONSORT statement: a literature review

Ly-Mee Yu et al. Trials. .

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the use and reporting of adjusted analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and compare the quality of reporting before and after the revision of the CONSORT Statement in 2001.

Design: Comparison of two cross sectional samples of published articles.

Data sources: Journal articles indexed on PubMed in December 2000 and December 2006.

Study selection: Parallel group RCTs with a full publication carried out in humans and published in English

Main outcome measures: Proportion of articles reported adjusted analysis; use of adjusted analysis; the reason for adjustment; the method of adjustment and the reporting of adjusted analysis results in the main text and abstract.

Results: In both cohorts, 25% of studies reported adjusted analysis (84/355 in 2000 vs 113/422 in 2006). Compared with articles reporting only unadjusted analyses, articles that reported adjusted analyses were more likely to specify primary outcomes, involve multiple centers, perform stratified randomization, be published in general medical journals, and recruit larger sample sizes. In both years a minority of articles explained why and how covariates were selected for adjustment (20% to 30%). Almost all articles specified the statistical methods used for adjustment (99% in 2000 vs 100% in 2006) but only 5% and 10%, respectively, reported both adjusted and unadjusted results as recommended in the CONSORT guidelines.

Conclusion: There was no evidence of change in the reporting of adjusted analysis results five years after the revision of the CONSORT Statement and only a few articles adhered fully to the CONSORT recommendations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow Chart of December 2006 Articles Eligible for Review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flowchart diagram of articles retrieved and included in the review.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of characteristics of articles that did or did not report adjusted analysis for trials published in 2000 and 2006.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000;355:1064–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02039-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Altman DG. Comparability of randomised groups. Statistician. 1985;34:125–36. doi: 10.2307/2987510. - DOI
    1. Hauck WW, Anderson S, Marcus SM. Should we adjust for covariates in nonlinear regression analyses of randomized trials? Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:249–56. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(97)00147-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Senn SJ. Covariate imbalance and random allocation in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1989;8:467–75. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780080410. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med. 2002;21:2917–30. doi: 10.1002/sim.1296. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources