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
. 2015 Mar 20;10(3):e0122328.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122328. eCollection 2015.

Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in otorhinolaryngologic literature - adherence to the CONSORT statement

Jeroen P M Peters  1 , Lotty Hooft  2 , Wilko Grolman  1 , Inge Stegeman  1
Affiliations

Assessment of the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in otorhinolaryngologic literature - adherence to the CONSORT statement

Jeroen P M Peters et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the preferred study design when comparing therapeutical interventions in medicine. To improve clarity, consistency and transparency of reporting RCTs, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed.

Objectives: (1) To assess the quality of reports and abstracts of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic literature by using CONSORT checklists, (2) to compare the quality of reports and abstracts of otorhinolaryngologic RCTs between the top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals, and (3) to formulate recommendations for authors and editors of otorhinolaryngologic ('ENT') journals.

Methods: Based on 2012 ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors, the top 5 general medical and ENT journals were selected. On 25 June 2014, using a highly sensitive Cochrane RCT filter and ENT filter, possibly relevant articles since January 1st, 2010 were retrieved and relevant RCTs were selected. We assessed how many CONSORT items were reported adequately in reports and abstracts and compared the two journal types.

Results: Otorhinolaryngologic RCTs (n = 15) published in general medical journals reported a mean of 92.1% (95% confidence interval: 89.5%-94.7%) of CONSORT items adequately, whereas RCTs (n = 18) published in ENT journals reported a mean of 71.8% (66.7%-76.8%) adequately (p < 0.001). For abstracts, means of 70.0% (63.7%-76.3%) and 32.3% (26.6-38.0%) were found respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences for specific items exist between the two journal types.

Conclusion: The quality of reporting of RCTs in otorhinolaryngologic journals is suboptimal. RCTs published in general medical journals have a higher quality of reporting than RCTs published in ENT journals. We recommend authors to report their trial according to the CONSORT Statement and advise editors to endorse the CONSORT Statement and implement the CONSORT Statement in the editorial process to ensure more adequate reporting of RCTs and their abstracts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Flowchart of search.
Date of search: June 25th, 2014. For complete search syntaxes: see S1 File.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Reporting of CONSORT items per journal type.
The percentage of articles reporting CONSORT items adequately (in %), sorted per journal type (articles published in general medical journals, n = 15; articles published in ENT journals, n = 18), using the CONSORT 2010 checklist [10]. ^ Item 1b: item Structured summary is assessed with the specific CONSORT for Abstracts checklist [12], see Fig. 3. * Marked items concern optional items. When possible in the study and adequately reported, the item was scored as ‘adequately reported’. When possible, but not reported, the item was scored as ‘inadequately reported’. If not possible, the item was not scored as ‘inadequately reported’, but left open.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Reporting of CONSORT for Abstracts items per journal type.
The percentage of articles reporting CONSORT for Abstract items adequately (in %), sorted per journal type (articles published in general medical journals, n = 15; articles published in ENT journals, n = 18). On the original CONSORT for Abstracts checklist [12], item 2 (author names) is specific for conference abstracts only. Therefore, we renumbered the subsequent items.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Agha R, Cooper D, Muir G. The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Int J Surg 2007;5(6): 413–22. - PubMed
    1. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323: 42–46. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chan AW, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 2005;365(9465): 1159–62. - PubMed
    1. Van de Wetering FT, Scholten RJ, Haring T, Clarke M, Hooft L. Trial registration numbers are underreported in biomedical publications. PLOS One 2012;7(11): e49599 10.1371/journal.pone.0049599 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials. JAMA 2004;291(20): 2457–65. - PubMed

MeSH terms