Internal validity of randomized controlled trials reported in major gastrointestinal and surgical endoscopy journals in 2008

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

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.

Methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in three spine journals from 2010 to 2012

PURPOSE

To elucidate the methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three spine journals from 2010 to 2012.

METHODS

In this study, we summarized the methodological report of RCTs in three major spine journals, including the Spine Journal, Spine and the European Spine Journal from 2010 to 2012. The methodological reporting quality, including the allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and sample size calculation, was revealed. Number of patients, funding source, type of intervention and country were also retrieved from each trial. The methodological reporting quality was descriptively reported.

RESULTS

Ninety trials were involved and 57.8% (52/90) reported adequate allocation sequence generation, 46.7% (42/90) reported adequate allocation concealment, 34.4% (31/90) reported adequate blinding and 37.8% (34/90) reported adequate sample size calculation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the methodological reporting quality of RCTs in the spine field needs further improvement.