scholarly journals Assessment of the reporting quality of resistance training interventions in randomised controlled trials for lower limb tendinopathy

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Burton
Keyword(s):  
Resistance Training ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Training Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals The reporting quality of parallel randomised controlled trials in ophthalmic surgery in 2011: a systematic review

Eye ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 1341-1349 ◽  
Author(s):  
A C Yao ◽  
A Khajuria ◽  
C F Camm ◽  
E Edison ◽  
R Agha
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Ophthalmic Surgery ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Assessment of Reporting Quality in Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture for Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Using the Consort Statement and Stricta Guidelines

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingchun Zeng ◽  
Guohua Lin ◽  
Lixia Li ◽  
Liming Lu ◽  
Chuyun Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Consort Statement ◽  
Allocation Concealment ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objectives To evaluate the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for post-stroke rehabilitation in order to provide information to facilitate transparent and more complete reporting of acupuncture RCTs in this field. Methods Multiple databases were searched from their inception through September 2015. Quality of reporting for included papers was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement and the Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) guidelines. Each item was scored 1 if it was reported, or 0 if it was not clearly stated. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Cohen's κ-statistics were calculated to assess agreement between the two reviewers. Results A total of 87 RCTs were included in the full text. Based on CONSORT, good reporting was evident for items “Randomised’ in the title or abstract’, ‘Participants’, ‘Statistical methods’, ‘Recruitment’, ‘Baseline data’, and ‘Outcomes and estimation’, with positive rates >80%. However, the quality of reporting for the items ‘Trial design’, ‘Outcomes’, ‘Sample size’, ‘Allocation concealment’, ‘Implementation’, ‘Blinding’, ‘Flow chart’, ‘Intent-to-treat analysis’, and ‘Ancillary analyses’ was very poor with positive rates <10%. Based on STRICTA, the items ‘Number of needle insertions per subject per session’, ‘Responses sought’, and ‘Needle type’ had poor reporting with positive rates <50%. Substantial agreement was observed for most items and good agreement was observed for some items. Conclusions The reporting quality of RCTs in acupuncture for post-stroke rehabilitation is unsatisfactory and needs improvement.

scholarly journals Reporting quality of randomised controlled trials published in prosthodontic and implantology journals

2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (12) ◽  
pp. 914-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Kloukos ◽  
S. N. Papageorgiou ◽  
I. Doulis ◽  
H. Petridis ◽  
N. Pandis
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Assessment of the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials of massage

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuan Zhang ◽  
Lin Zhang ◽  
Weifeng Xiong ◽  
Xihong Wang ◽  
Xiaohan Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
And Control ◽  
International English

Abstract Objective To assess the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of massage, particularly whether necessary elements related to massage interventions were adequately reported. Methods A total of 8 electronic databases were systematically searched for massage RCTs published in English and Chinese from the date of their inception to June 22, 2020. Quality assessment was performed using three instruments, namely the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 Checklist (37 items), the CONSORT Extension for NPT (Nonpharmacologic Treatments) 2017 checklist (18 items), and a self-designed massage-specific checklist (16 items) which included massage rationale, intervention and control group details. Descriptive statistics were additionally used to analyse the baseline characteristics of included trials. Results A total of 2,447 massage RCTs were identified, of which most (96.8%) were distributed in China. For the completeness of CONSORT, NPT Extension, and massage-specific checklists, the average reporting percentages were 50%, 10% and 45%, respectively. Of 68 assessed items in total (exclusion of 3 repeated items on intervention), 42 were poorly presented, including 18 CONSORT items, 15 NPT items, and 9 massage-specific items. Although the overall quality of reporting showed slightly improvement in articles published after 2010, the international (English) journals presented a higher score of the CONSORT and NPT items, while the Chinese journals were associated with the increased score of massage-specific items. Conclusion The quality of reporting of published massage RCTs is variable and in need of improvement. Reporting guideline “CONSORT extension for massage” should be developed.

scholarly journals Reporting quality of surgical randomised controlled trials in head and neck cancer: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Netanya Aarabi Canagarajah ◽  
George James Porter ◽  
Kurchi Mitra ◽  
Timothy Shun Man Chu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Head And Neck Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Neck Cancer ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Full Design

Abstract Purpose Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of an intervention. However, previous research has shown that RCTs in several surgical specialities are poorly reported, making it difficult to ascertain if various biases have been appropriately minimised. This systematic review assesses the reporting quality of surgical head and neck cancer RCTs. Methods A literature search of PubMed and Embase was performed. Papers were included if they reported RCTs which assessed a surgical technique used to treat or diagnose head and neck cancer published during or after 2011. The CONSORT 2010 checklist was used to evaluate the reporting quality of these trials. Results 41 papers were included. The mean CONSORT score was 16.5/25 (66% adherence) and the scores ranged from 7.5 (30%) to 25. The most common omissions were full trial protocol (found in 14.6%), participant recruitment method (22%) and effect size with a precision estimate for all outcome measures (29.3%). The full design and implementation of the randomisation methods were reported in 6 (14.6%). Papers published in journals which endorsed CONSORT had significantly higher scores (p = 0.02) and the journal impact factor was significantly correlated with CONSORT score (p = 0.01). Conclusion We have identified several pieces of information that are underreported in surgical head and neck cancer RCTs. These omissions make understanding and comparing the methodologies and conclusions of RCTs more difficult. The endorsement of CONSORT by journals improved adherence, suggesting that wider adoption of the checklist may improve reporting.

scholarly journals Exploring engagement with authors of randomised controlled trials to develop recommendations to improve allocation concealment implementation and reporting

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 83
Author(s):  
Laura Clark ◽  
Natasha Mitchell ◽  
Catherine Hewitt ◽  
David Torgerson
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Allocation Concealment ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Reviews have consistently shown that allocation concealment is frequently implemented and reported suboptimally in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This research aims to pilot engaging with authors of RCTs to explore their knowledge and understanding of allocation concealment implementation and reporting to ascertain areas and mechanisms for their improvement. Methods: Authors that published RCTs in core clinical journals in one month in 2019 were identified. Authors were invited to complete questionnaires to elicit their views and experiences on the implementation and reporting quality focussing on allocation concealment. Methodological quality of allocation concealment was evaluated in this sample by assessing adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Results: Reporting was suboptimal, with only 57% of allocation concealment methods reported to be implemented which were judged as adequate, with 18% using sealed envelopes and more than 40% not adequately reporting allocation methods. When exploring allocation concealment, implementation and reporting questionnaires were found to elicit a low response rate amongst authors of RCTs. Discussion: Following analysis of the themes that emerged from the questionnaires, the main recommendations to improve reporting quality are: journals need to endorse, adhere and promote reporting guidelines, a methodologist could review methodological details of publications simultaneously to peer review, envelopes as a form of allocation concealment are poorly implemented and reported, so careful review of these is required, funders need to insist on more robust allocation concealment methods are employed if the RCT setting allows, and authors need to acknowledge their responsibility for transparent reporting of RCTs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document