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
. 2023 Feb;192(1):73-80.
doi: 10.1007/s11845-022-02955-6. Epub 2022 Mar 3.

The reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in leading medical journals between 2019 and 2020: a systematic review

Mairead McErlean  1 , Jack Samways  2 , Peter J Godolphin  3 , Yang Chen  4
Affiliations

The reporting standards of randomised controlled trials in leading medical journals between 2019 and 2020: a systematic review

Mairead McErlean et al. Ir J Med Sci. 2023 Feb.

Erratum in

Abstract

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard study design used to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of healthcare interventions. The reporting quality of RCTs is of fundamental importance for readers to appropriately analyse and understand the design and results of studies which are often labelled as practice changing papers. The aim of this article is to assess the reporting standards of a representative sample of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2019 and 2020 in four of the highest impact factor general medical journals. A systematic review of the electronic database Medline was conducted. Eligible RCTs included those published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, and British Medical Journal between January 1, 2019, and June 9, 2020. The study protocol was registered on medRxiv ( https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.06.20147074 ). Of a total eligible sample of 497 studies, 50 full-text RCTs were reviewed against the CONSORT 2010 statement and relevant extensions where necessary. The mean adherence to the CONSORT checklist was 90% (SD 9%). There were specific items on the CONSORT checklist which had recurring suboptimal adherence, including in title (item 1a, 70% adherence), randomisation (items 9 and 10, 56% and 30% adherence) and outcomes and estimation (item 17b, 62% adherence). Amongst a sample of RCTs published in four of the highest impact factor general medical journals, there was good overall adherence to the CONSORT 2010 statement. However there remains significant room for improvement in areas such as description of allocation concealment and implementation of randomisation.

Keywords: CONSORT; Randomised controlled trial (RCT); Reporting guidelines.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA Flow of study records
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Rennie D. CONSORT revised—improving the reporting of randomized trials. JAMA. 2006;2001(285):7. - PubMed
    1. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement JAMA. 1996;276(8):637–639. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, CONSORT Group (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trails. Ann Intern Med 134(8):657–62 - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF et al (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340:c869 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chen HL, Liu K. Reporting in randomized trials published in International Journal of Cardiology in 2011 compared to the recommendations made in CONSORT 2010. Int J Cardiol. 2012;160:208–210. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.06.045. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources