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
. 2015 Jul;94(27):e1083.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001083.

Methodological Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in 3 Leading Diabetes Journals From 2011 to 2013 Following CONSORT Statement: A System Review

Affiliations
Review

Methodological Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in 3 Leading Diabetes Journals From 2011 to 2013 Following CONSORT Statement: A System Review

Xiao Zhai et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2015 Jul.

Abstract

To appraise the current reporting methodological quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in 3 leading diabetes journals.We systematically searched the literature for RCTs in Diabetes Care, Diabetes and Diabetologia from 2011 to 2013.Characteristics were extracted based on Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Generation of allocation, concealment of allocation, intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and handling of dropouts were defined as primary outcome and "low risk of bias." Sample size calculation, type of intervention, country, number of patients, funding source were also revealed and descriptively reported. Trials were compared among journals, study years, and other characters.A total of 305 RCTs were enrolled in this study. One hundred eight (35.4%) trials reported adequate generation of allocation, 87 (28.5%) trials reported adequate concealment of allocation, 53 (23.8%) trials used ITT analysis, and 130 (58.3%) trials were adequate in handling of dropouts. Only 15 (4.9%) were "low risk of bias" trials. Studies at a large scale (n > 100) or from European presented with more "low risk of bias" trials than those at a small scale (n ≤ 100) or from other regions. No improvements were found in these 3 years.This study shows that methodological reporting quality of RCTs in the major diabetes journals remains suboptimal. It can be further improved to meet and keep up with the standards of the CONSORT statement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Chalmers TC, Smith H, Jr, Blackburn B, et al. A method for assessing the quality of a randomized control trial. Control Clin Trials 1981; 2:31–49. - PubMed
    1. Allen TW. Guide to clinical preventive services. Report of the US Preventive Services Task Force. J Am Osteopath Assoc 1991; 91:281–289. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, et al. Opportunities and challenges for improving the quality of reporting clinical research: CONSORT and beyond. CMAJ 2004; 171:349–350. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352:609–613. - PubMed
    1. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135:982–989. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms