The quality of reporting of trial abstracts is suboptimal: Survey of major general medical journals

2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otavio Berwanger ◽  
Rodrigo A. Ribeiro ◽  
Alessandro Finkelsztejn ◽  
Marcelo Watanabe ◽  
Erica A. Suzumura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
General Medical Journals ◽  
Major General

The quality of safety reporting in trials is still suboptimal: Survey of major general medical journals

2011 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 124-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna-Bettina Haidich ◽  
Charis Birtsou ◽  
Theodore Dardavessis ◽  
Ilias Tirodimos ◽  
Malamatenia Arvanitidou
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journals ◽  
Safety Reporting ◽  
General Medical Journals ◽  
Major General

scholarly journals Quality of Reporting in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 107327481878130
Author(s):  
Huiyun Zhu ◽  
Si Chen ◽  
Pei Xie ◽  
Geliang Yang ◽  
Zhenqiang Zhong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Solid Tumor ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Outcome Feedback ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Registration Rate ◽  
General Medical Journals

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important for evidence-based medicine; however, their quality of reporting remains to be evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the report concerning solid tumor medication. Articles were searched in PubMed to identify all oncology phase III RCTs published from 2011 to 2015, and the results were classified manually through Endnote X7.0 software. Registration rate, primary end point (PEP) consistency, positive result rate, enrollment time point, outcome feedback in the registry, and publish time zone were extracted and assessed. The overall registration rate was higher than years before; nevertheless, a portion of trials showed PEP discrepancies and enrolled patients before registration in either journal formats. Trials published in top 5 general medical journals paid more attention to results feedback on registration websites and were more prompt with publication after study accomplishment. Our data suggested general medical journals may be more rigorous compared to oncology journals but identified a preference for positive results. On the whole, RCTs published between 2011 and 2015 seemed fairly standardized. Surveillance in registry and outcome feedback still needs to be strengthened for the stringency and reliability of clinical trials in solid tumor medication territory.

scholarly journals SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: The reporting standards of Randomised Clinical Trials in leading medical journals between 2019-2020

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mairead McErlean ◽  
Jack Samways ◽  
Peter Godolphin ◽  
Yang Chen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Medical Specialty ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trials ◽  
Reporting Standards ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Review Protocol

This is a systematic review protocol which outlines the basis and methodology for our intended review which at the time of writing is in the study screening phase. Our aim is to answer the fundamental questions:To systematically identify RCTs published in the four leading medical journals between January 1st 2019 to May 31st 2020.To assess the quality of reporting of such RCTs using the CONSORT 2010 statement.To identify any association with medical specialty or size or type of RCT and the rate of adherence to the CONSORT 2010 statement.

A systematic analysis of the quantity of AIDS publications and the quality of research methods in three general medical journals

1990 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Lyons ◽  
David B. Larson ◽  
Joseph C. Bareta ◽  
Ingrid Liu ◽  
Rachel Anderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
General Medical Journals ◽  
Quality Of Research

A TOOL TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF REPORTING PUBLISHED ECONOMIC ANALYSES

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Gerard ◽  
Janelle Seymour ◽  
Irenie Smoker
Keyword(s):  
Medical Journal ◽  
British Medical Journal ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
English Language ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Baseline Information ◽  
Economic Analyses

Objectives: To test the feasibility of obtaining a baseline level of quality of reporting for cost-utility analysis (CUA) studies using the British Medical Journal economic submissions checklist, test interrater reliability of this tool, and discuss its longer term implications.Methods: CUA studies in peer-reviewed English language journals in 1996, assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist, a quality index, and interrater reliability correlations.Results: Forty-three CUA studies were assessed, with 23 checklist items acceptable and 10 items inadequate. Lowest quality scores were reported in specialist medical journals. Proportional agreement between assessors was over 80%.Conclusions: The British Medical Journal checklist is a feasible tool to collect baseline information on the quality of reporting in journals other than the British Medical Journal. Editors of specialist medical journals are in greatest need of economic guidance. If handled carefully, they might consider adopting the British Medical Journal checklist.

Standards for reporting randomized controlled trials in neurosurgery

2011 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin N. Kiehna ◽  
Robert M. Starke ◽  
Nader Pouratian ◽  
Aaron S. Dumont
Keyword(s):  
New England ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Jadad Score ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Neurosurgical Patients

Object The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) criteria were published in 1996 to standardize the reporting and improve the quality of clinical trials. Despite having been endorsed by major medical journals and shown to improve the quality of reported trials, neurosurgical journals have yet to formally adopt these reporting criteria. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality and reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in neurosurgery and the factors that may affect the quality of reported trials. Methods The authors evaluated all neurosurgical RCTs published in 2006 and 2007 in the principal neurosurgical journals (Journal of Neurosurgery; Neurosurgery; Surgical Neurology; Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry; and Acta Neurochirurgica) and in 3 leading general medical journals (Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine). Randomized controlled trials that addressed operative decision making or the treatment of neurosurgical patients were included in this analysis. The RCT quality was evaluated using the Jadad score and the CONSORT checklist. Results In 2006 and 2007, 27 RCTs relevant to intracranial neurosurgery were reported. Of these trials, only 59% had a Jadad score ≥ 3. The 3 major medical journals all endorsed the CONSORT guidelines, while none of the neurosurgical journals have adopted these guidelines. Randomized controlled trials published in the 3 major medical journals had a significantly higher mean CONSORT score (mean 41, range 39–44) compared with those published in neurosurgical journals (mean 26.4, range 17–38; p < 0.0001). Jadad scores were also significantly higher for the major medical journals (mean 3.42, range 2–5) than neurosurgical journals (mean 2.45, range 1–5; p = 0.05). Conclusions Despite the growing volume of RCTs in neurosurgery, the quality of reporting of these trials remains suboptimal, especially in the neurosurgical journals. Improved awareness of the CONSORT guidelines by journal editors, reviewers, and authors of these papers could improve the methodology and reporting of RCTs in neurosurgery.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document