Reporting of methods was better in the Clinical Trials Registry-India than in Indian journal publications

Reporting summary results in clinical trial registries: updated guidance from WHO

The importance of publicly registering clinical trials and reporting their results in registries is widely recognised. While substantial progress has been made with registering trials before enrolment, the availability of results in registries remains uncommon despite expanding legislative and funder requirements-leading to an incomplete evidence base and avoidable waste of resources, particularly for unpublished trials. This paper discusses the rationale for reporting summary results in trial registries, reviews the current landscape of registry policies, and presents new WHO guidance for reporting results in registries. The 2025 WHO guidance was developed after consultation with relevant parties, including researchers, patients, sponsors, funders, regulators, journal editors, registry administrators, and the public. The guidance defines eight minimum items that are essential for understanding and interpreting the summary results for all trials. Implementation of the WHO guidance by trial registries, broad adherence by investigators and sponsors, and endorsement by funders, regulators, legislators, research ethics committees, patient organisations, and journals can help enhance the contribution of trials to scientific knowledge, patient care, and health policy.

Assessment of Adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Guidelines of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in an Indian and International Pharmacology Journal From 2019 to 2023

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard in clinical research, providing the highest level of evidence for the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. However, the validity and utility of RCTs depend on the quality of their design, conduct, and reporting. The purpose of this review was to assess the adherence of RCTs published in Indian and international pharmacology journals to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. RCTs published from 2019 to 2023 from one Indian and one international pharmacology journal were assessed using the CONSORT 2010 checklist, and the items were assigned as "present" or "absent." Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, and chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for categorical data. A total of 61 articles were analyzed, out of which 31 and 30 articles belonged to international and Indian journals, respectively. RCTs published in international journals consistently showed higher adherence rates compared to Indian journals, with statistically significant differences for several checklist items, including trial design description (31, 100%), intervention details (31, 100%), and reporting of harms (27, 87%) (p < 0.05). While Indian journals performed better on points like additional analyses (19, 63.3%) and recruitment dates (23, 76.6%). Overall, the international journal demonstrated significantly higher overall adherence to CONSORT guidelines compared to the Indian journal (p < 0.05). The international journal exhibited greater overall adherence than the Indian journal, with the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.05). The overall reporting was suboptimal. Adherence should be improved further, and the journals should ensure the compliance of authors and reviewers with the standard reporting guidelines.

Supporting study registration to reduce research waste

An estimated 82-89% of ecological research and 85% of medical research has limited or no value to the end user because of various inefficiencies. We argue that registration and registered reports can enhance the quality and impact of ecological research. Drawing on evidence from other fields, chiefly medicine, we support our claim that registration can reduce research waste. However, increasing registration rates, quality and impact will be very slow without coordinated effort of funders, publishers and research institutions. We therefore call on them to facilitate the adoption of registration by providing adequate support. We outline several aspects to be considered when designing a registration system that would best serve the field of ecology. To further inform the development of such a system, we call for more research to identify the causes of low registration rates in ecology. We suggest short- and long-term actions to bolster registration and reduce research waste.

The need for a new keyword - "Trial registry-metaresearch" - to track certain uses of clinical trial registry records

Public clinical trial registries contain a large amount of information about a large number of trials. Academic researchers have conducted various analyses using such data. However, some of these studies do not concern the medical condition or intervention that is the focus of each trial. We list examples of publications that have performed such analyses. Currently, there is no keyword to track relevant publications. Here, we propose a novel keyword, "Trial registry-metaresearch", that could be used in such publications. This would be a great help to researchers who wish to more systematically search the literature for such metaresearch.

Discrepancies between FDA documents and ClinicalTrials.gov for Orphan Drug-related clinical trial data

Clinical trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) hold large amounts of data regarding trials. Drugs for rare diseases are known as orphan drugs (ODs), and it is particularly important that trials for ODs are registered, and the data in the trial record are accurate. However, there may be discrepancies between trial-related data that were the basis for the approval of a drug, as available from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents such as the Medical Review, and the data in CTG. We performed an audit of FDA-approved ODs, comparing trial-related data on phase, enrollment, and enrollment attribute (anticipated or actual) in such FDA documents and in CTG. The Medical Reviews of 63 ODs listed 422 trials. We used study identifiers in the Medical Reviews to find matches with the trial ID number, 'Other ID' or 'Acronyms' in CTG, and identified 202 trials that were registered with CTG. In comparing the phase data from the 'Table of Clinical Studies' of the Medical Review, with the data in CTG, there were exact matches in only 75% of the cases. The enrollment matched only in 70% of the cases, and the enrollment attribute in 91% of the cases. A similar trend was found for the sub-set of pivotal trials. Going forward, for all trials listed in a registry, it is important to provide the trial ID in the Medical Review. This will ensure that all trials that are the basis of a drug approval can be swiftly and unambiguously identified in CTG. Also, there continue to be discrepancies in trial data between FDA documents and CTG. Data in the trial records in CTG need to be updated when relevant.

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals' recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals' Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).

A comparative analysis of important public clinical trial registries, and a proposal for an interim ideal one

Background

It is an ethical and scientific obligation to register each clinical trial, and report its results, accurately, comprehensively and on time. The WHO recognizes 17 public registries as Primary Registries, and has also introduced a set of minimal standards in the International Standards for Clinical Trial Registries (ISCTR) that primary registries need to implement. These standards are categorized into nine sections—Content, Quality and Validity, Accessibility, Unambiguous Identification, Technical Capacity, Administration and Governance, the Trial Registration Data Set (TRDS), Partner registries and Data Interchange Standards. This study compared the WHO’s primary registries, and the US’s ClinicalTrials.gov, to examine the implementation of ISCTR, with the aim of defining features of an interim ideal registry.

Methods and findings

The websites of the 18 registries were evaluated for 14 features that map to one or more of the nine sections of ISCTR, and assigned scores for their variations of these features. The assessed features include the nature of the content; the number and nature of fields to conduct a search; data download formats; the nature of the audit trail; the health condition category; the documentation available on a registry website; etc. The registries received scores for their particular variation of a given feature based on a scoring rationale devised for each individual feature analysed. Overall, the registries received between 27% and 80% of the maximum score of 94. The results from our analysis were used to define a set of features of an interim ideal registry.

Conclusions

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to quantify the widely divergent quality of the primary registries’ compliance with the ISCTR. Even with this limited assessment, it is clear that some of the registries have much work to do, although even a few improvements would significantly improve them.

What empirical research has been undertaken on the ethics of clinical research in India? A systematic scoping review and narrative synthesis

INTRODUCTION

The post-2005 rise in clinical trials and clinical research conducted in India was accompanied by frequent reports of unethical practices, leading to a series of regulatory changes. We conducted a systematic scoping review to obtain an overview of empirical research pertaining to the ethics of clinical trials/research in India.

METHODS

Our search strategy combined terms related to ethics/bioethics, informed consent, clinical trials/research and India, across nine databases, up to November 2019. Peer-reviewed research exploring ethical aspects of clinical trials/research in India with any stakeholder groups was included. We developed an evidence map, undertook a narrative synthesis and identified research gaps. A consultation exercise with stakeholders in India helped contextualise the review and identify additional research priorities.

RESULTS

Titles/Abstracts of 9699 articles were screened, full text of 282 obtained and 80 were included. Research on the ethics of clinical trials/research covered a wide range of topics, often conducted with little to no funding. Studies predominantly examined what lay (patients/public) and professional participants (eg, healthcare staff/students/faculty) know about topics such as research ethics or understand from the information given to obtain their consent for research participation. Easily accessible groups, namely ethics committee members and healthcare students were frequently researched. Research gaps included developing a better understanding of the recruitment-informed consent process, including the doctor-patient interaction, in multiple contexts and exploring issues of equity and justice in clinical trials/research.

CONCLUSION

The review demonstrates that while a wide range of topics have been studied in India, the focus is largely on assessing knowledge levels across different population groups. This is a useful starting point, but fundamental questions remain unanswered about informed consent processes and broader issues of inequity that pervade the clinical trials/research landscape. A priority-setting exercise and appropriate funding mechanisms to support researchers in India would help improve the clinical trials/research ecosystem.

Adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Guidelines for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials Related to Mandibular Third Molars

PURPOSE

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the backbone of evidence-based medicine. Despite the widespread acceptance of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), its use for reporting clinical trials in journals remains poor. The purpose of this study was to find out to what extent RCTs related to mandibular third molars have adhered to the CONSORT statement.

METHODS

This study was carried out during April 2020 to June 2020. PubMed was used to retrieve RCTs related to mandibular third molars conducted during the last 5 years. The search terms used were mandibular third molar OR lower third molar OR impacted mandibular third molar AND randomized controlled trial. Each article was assessed for adherence to the CONSORT statement.

RESULTS

Eighty unique articles were retrieved. The mean percentage adherence to the CONSORT statement noted was 60.26%. Of the 37 CONSORT items, only 4 items showed 100% adherence (2a, 2b, 4a, and 12a). The most underreported items were #10, 12b, 17a, 17b, 18, 19, 23 to 25. Of the 23 journals considered, 6 journals did not recommend CONSORT for reporting RCT in the "Instructions to Authors" guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the study, it is clear that the RCTs related to third molar do not show 100% adherence to the CONSORT checklist. The editorial policy, peer reviewers, and researchers should endorse the use of the CONSORT checklist for transparent reporting of the RCTs.

An analysis of deficiencies in the data of interventional drug trials registered with Clinical Trials Registry - India

Background

Clinical Trials Registry - India (CTRI) was established in July 2007 and today hosts thousands of trials, a significant fraction of them registered in the last couple of years. We wished to undertake an up-to-date analysis of specific fields of the registered trials. In doing so we discovered problems with the quality of the data, which we describe in this paper.

Methods

We downloaded CTRI records and reformatted the data into an SQLite database, which we then queried. We also accessed ClinicalTrials.gov records as needed.

Results

We discovered various categories of problems with the data in the CTRI database, including (1) a lack of clarity in the classification of Types of Study, (2) internal inconsistencies, (3) incomplete or non-standard information, (4) missing data, (5) variations in names or classification, and (6) incomplete or incorrect details of ethics committees. For most of these problems, error rates have been calculated, over time. Most were found to be in single digits, although others were significantly higher. We suggest how data quality in future editions of CTRI could be improved, including (1) a more elaborate and structured way of classifying the Type of Study, (2) the use of logic rules to prevent internal inconsistencies, (3) less use of free text fields and greater use of drop-down menus, (4) more fields to be made compulsory, (5) the pre-registration of individuals’ and organizations’ names and their subsequent selection from drop-down menus while registering a trial, and (6) more information about each ethics committee, including (a) its address and (b) linking the name of the trial site to the relevant ethics committee. As we discuss problems with the data of specific fields, we also examine — where possible — the quality of the data in the corresponding fields in ClinicalTrials.gov, the largest clinical trial registry in the world.

Conclusions

It is a scientific and ethical obligation to correctly record all information pertaining to each trial run in India. CTRI is a valuable database that has proved its worth in terms of improving the record of trials in the country. The suggestions made herein would improve it further.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3592-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Some data quality issues at ClinicalTrials.gov

Background

Clinical trial registries have been established as a form of public accountability. Sponsors ought to register their trials promptly and accurately, but this is not always done. Some of the problems include non-registration of trials, registration of trials with incomplete information, and non-reporting of trial results on time. In this study we enumerate or quantify some quality issues with respect to Principal Investigator (PI) and Responsible Party data.

Methods

We analyzed interventional trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Using certain selection criteria, we started with 112,013 records, and then applied further filters. The trial had to (a) start between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2014, (b) include a “drug” or “biological” in the “intervention” field, (c) be registered with an American authority, and (d) list a real person’s name as investigator and also his or her role in the study.

Results

We identified four categories of errors in the ClinicalTrials.gov records. First, some data were missing. The name of the investigator, or his or her role, was missing in 12% of 35,121 trials. In examining 71,359 pairs of names and roles, 17% of the “names” were found to be not those of real persons, but instead junk information. Second, there were variations in a large number of names. We identified 19 categories of variants. We determined that 13% of the names had variants that could not be resolved using a program. Third, some trials listed many PIs each, although only one such person holds overall responsibility for the trial and therefore not more than one person should be listed as PI. Fourth, in examining whether the PI’s name was available as part of the Responsible Party tag, we found that in 1221 (3.5%) of 35,121 trials, the Responsible Party tag is absent.

Conclusions

We have outlined four categories of problems with data hosted by ClinicalTrials.gov and have quantified three of them. We also suggest how these errors could be prevented in future. It is important to carry out various kinds of audits of trial registries, in order to identify lacunae in the records, that they be addressed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3408-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The assessment of the quality of randomized controlled trials published in Indian medical journals

Aim:

In this retrospective cross-sectional study, we sought to evaluate if the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in the year 2017 among the Indian medical journals (IMJs) complied with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and identify domains where reporting could be improved.

Methods:

A literature search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar to identify all the IMJs that published RCTs in the year 2017. In the archives of the identified journals, the number of published RCTs was identified and the full text was obtained. We selected articles that stated RCT in abstract and title and that evaluated the safety and efficacy of all therapeutic and preventive interventions.

Results:

A total of seven IMJs comprising of the Indian Journal of Anesthesia, Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Indian Journal of Pharmacology, Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Journal of Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics, and Indian Journal of Medical and Pediatric Oncology that published a total of 84 RCTs were included. The mean compliance score of all the RCTs was 13.7 ± 2.66 (57%). Most RCTs had serious reporting deficiencies in the methodology and result sections.

Discussion:

In spite of journals making it mandatory for prospective authors to comply with the CONSORT guidelines, it is intriguing that there continues to be significant lacunae in reporting RCTs adequately in most IMJs.

Conclusion:

There is an urgent need to impart training to the medical community of our country in clinical research methods and reporting of RCTs.

Adherence to the CONSORT Statement in the Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials on Pharmacological Interventions Published in Iranian Medical Journals

BACKGROUND

Among manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form the backbone of evidence-based medicine. Hence, their protocol should be designed rigorously and their results should be reported clearly. To improve the quality of RCT reporting, researchers developed the CONSORT Statement in 1996 and updated it in 2010. This study was designed to assess the quality of RCT reporting vis-à-vis adherence to CONSORT among articles published in Iranian medical journals (English, Persian, CONSORT-endorsing, and non-CONSORT-endorsing).

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, all RCTs published in all Iranian medical journals from September 2012 to September 2013 were retrieved to evaluate their adherence to CONSORT. The journals' instructions for authors were also reviewed to find out whether or not they endorsed CONSORT. The CONSORT 2010 Checklist was used. Microsoft Excel 2007 was applied to analyze the data, and MedCalc was employed to compare the groups.

RESULTS

Totally, 492 pharmacological RCTs that met our inclusion criteria were identified. Twenty-five items were reported in fewer than 50% of the articles. The differences between the articles published in Persian and English language journals were statistically significant in 17 items. The differences between the articles published in the CONSORT-endorsing and non-CONSORT-endorsing journals were significant in 8 items.

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed very weak adherence to CONSORT. Authors, reviewers, and editors should be trained to use standards expressed by the CONSORT Group in reporting RCTs.

A systematic review of the processes used to link clinical trial registrations to their published results

BACKGROUND

Studies measuring the completeness and consistency of trial registration and reporting rely on linking registries with bibliographic databases. In this systematic review, we quantified the processes used to identify these links.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to May 2016 for studies linking trial registries with bibliographic databases. The processes used to establish these links were categorised as automatic when the registration identifier was available in the bibliographic database or publication, or manual when linkage required inference or contacting of trial investigators. The number of links identified by each process was extracted where available. Linear regression was used to determine whether the proportions of links available via automatic processes had increased over time.

RESULTS

In 43 studies that examined cohorts of registry entries, 24 used automatic and manual processes to find articles; 3 only automatic; and 11 only manual (5 did not specify). Twelve studies reported results for both manual and automatic processes and showed that a median of 23% (range from 13 to 42%) included automatic links to articles, while 17% (range from 5 to 42%) of registry entries required manual processes to find articles. There was no evidence that the proportion of registry entries with automatic links had increased (R ² = 0.02, p = 0.36). In 39 studies that examined cohorts of articles, 21 used automatic and manual processes; 9 only automatic; and 2 only manual (7 did not specify). Sixteen studies reported numbers for automatic and manual processes and indicated that a median of 49% (range from 8 to 97%) of articles had automatic links to registry entries, and 10% (range from 0 to 28%) required manual processes to find registry entries. There was no evidence that the proportion of articles with automatic links to registry entries had increased (R ² = 0.01, p = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

The linkage of trial registries to their corresponding publications continues to require extensive manual processes. We did not find that the use of automatic linkage has increased over time. Further investigation is needed to inform approaches that will ensure publications are properly linked to trial registrations, thus enabling efficient monitoring of trial reporting.

Inadequate use and regulation of interventions against publication bias decreases their effectiveness: a systematic review

Objectives

To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or reduce publication and related biases.

Study Design and Setting

We searched multiple databases and performed manual searches using terms related to publication bias and known interventions against publication bias. We dually reviewed citations and assessed risk of bias. We synthesized results by intervention and outcomes measured and graded the quality of the evidence (QoE).

Results

We located 38 eligible studies. The use of prospective trial registries (PTR) has increased since 2005 (seven studies, moderate QoE); however, positive outcome-reporting bias is prevalent (14 studies, low QoE), and information in nonmandatory fields is vague (10 studies, low QoE). Disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI) is inadequate (five studies, low QoE). Blinding peer reviewers may reduce geographical bias (two studies, very low QoE), and open-access publishing does not discriminate against authors from low-income countries (two studies, very low QoE).

Conclusion

The use of PTR and CoI disclosures is increasing; however, the adequacy of their use requires improvement. The effect of open-access publication and blinding of peer reviewers on publication bias is unclear, as is the effect of other interventions such as electronic publication and authors' rights to publish their results.

Endorsement for improving the quality of reports on randomized controlled trials of traditional medicine journals in Korea: a systematic review

The aim of this study was to assess the endorsement of reporting guidelines in Korean traditional medicine (TM) journals by reviewing their instructions to authors. We examined the instructions to authors in all of the TM journals published in Korea to assess the appropriate use of reporting guidelines for research studies. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published after 2010 in journals that endorsed reporting guidelines were obtained. The reporting quality was assessed using the following guidelines: the 38-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for non-pharmacological trials (NPT); the 17-item Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) statement, instead of the 5-item CONSORT for acupuncture trials; and the 22-item CONSORT extensions for herbal medicine trials. The overall item score was calculated and expressed as a proportion.One journal that endorsed reporting guidelines was identified. Twenty-nine RCTs published in this journal after 2010 met the selection criteria. General editorial policies such as those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) were endorsed by 15 journals. In each of the CONSORT-NPT articles, 21.6 to 56.8% of the items were reported, with an average of 11.3 items (29.7%) being reported. In the 24 RCTs (24/29, 82.8%) appraised using the STRICTA items, an average of 10.6 items (62.5%) were addressed, with a range of 41.2 to 100%. For the herbal intervention reporting, 17 items (77.27%) were reported. In the RCT studies before and after the endorsement of CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines by each journal, all of the STRICTA items had significant improvement, whereas the CONSORT-NPT items improved without statistical significance.The endorsement of reporting guidelines is limited in the TM journals in Korea. Authors should adhere to the reporting guidelines, and editorial departments should refer authors to the various reporting guidelines to improve the quality of their articles.

Quality and reporting of publications by Indonesian researchers: a literature survey

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the quality of reporting of the risk of bias of the Indonesian medical research.

METHODS

Publications from PubMed and non-PubMed indexed Indonesian medical journals between January 2008 to December 2010 were assessed for risk of bias based on criterion combination from Hedges-criteria and the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. We assessed whether the publications addressed the risk of bias adequately (quality of reporting) and whether the risk of bias criterion was fulfilled (quality of methods). The quality (both of reporting and of methods) of a study was classified as "high" if, for at least two-thirds of the criteria were adequately reported and fulfilled. It was classified as "low" when only one-third of the criteria were reported and or fulfilled.

RESULTS

Of the 1753 publications, 29% (n = 507) were original medical research. For 21% (109/507) the quality of reporting was high; for 15% (77/507) the quality of methods was high. The proportion of high quality was significantly higher among PubMed than non-PubMed, with difference between proportions: (95%CI of difference: 3 to 23).

CONCLUSION

A small proportion of Indonesian studies have high quality of reporting or methods. When international reporting guidelines are endorsed and followed, the quality of future studies may improve.

Challenges in launching multinational oncology clinical trials in India

In the recent past, there has been an impressive growth in the number of clinical trials launched worldwide, including India. Participation in well-designed oncology clinical trials is of advantage to Indian healthcare system in general, and cancer patients in particular. However, the number of clinical trials being run in India is not commensurate with the cancer burden prevailing in the country. In this article, the authors investigate the reasons for this discrepancy, highlight critical bottlenecks, and propose ways to ameliorate the situation.

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review

BACKGROUND

The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

In this update, we review and summarise the evidence from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Twenty studies were eligible of which four were newly identified in this update. Only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Fifteen of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This update does not change the conclusions of the review in which 16 studies were included. Direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias is shown. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Compliance to the CONSORT statement of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation: a 3-year overview

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our primary aim was to assess to what extent reports of RCTs in solid organ transplantation adhere to the 2010 CONSORT statement. Secondly, we investigated the relationship between CONSORT adherence, methodological quality and some other factors. We included 290 RCTs that were published between 2007 and 2009. We examined to what extent trial reports complied with 30 items of the CONSORT statement. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale plus allocation concealment and whether data analysis was by randomized group (intention to treat). On average, trial reports addressed 47% of the CONSORT items. Forty-three per cent of RCTs was considered to be of good quality according to Jadad scale, and the items allocation concealment and data analysis were satisfied in approximately one-third of trials. Good quality RCTs reported on more CONSORT items than poor quality trials. The methodological quality and adherence to the CONSORT statement of RCTs published in journals that endorse the CONSORT statement was superior to those in journals without CONSORT endorsement. Overall compliance with the CONSORT statement and the methodological quality of RCTs in organ transplantation remains unsatisfactory.