A critical appraisal of the reporting quality of published randomized controlled trials in the fall injuries

Reporting of CONSORT flow diagrams for parallel group randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The inclusion of a participant flow diagram in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a requirement of the CONSORT guidelines. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of flow diagrams of RCTs published in orthodontic journals in relation to the CONSORT Flow Diagram for Parallel Group RCTs.

MATERIALS/METHODS

RCTs published between January 2011 and December 2023 in five orthodontic journals were identified and trial characteristics were extracted. The reporting of the flow diagram (if included) was assessed for completeness in relation to the CONSORT flow diagram template. Descriptive statistics and cross tabulations between RCT characteristics and presence/no presence of a flow diagram were performed. On an exploratory basis, univariable associations between RCT characteristics and presence/no presence of a flow diagram were performed and univariable logistic regression to examine the effect of publication year on flow diagram reporting.

RESULTS

Three hundred and thirty-four RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The majority were published in 2021 (n = 39, 11.7%), and had 2 arms (n = 279, 83.5%). Three-hundred and seven (92.0%) RCTs were published in journals endorsing the CONSORT guidelines. Two hundred and thirty-three (69.8%) RCTs included a flow diagram and from these, 48.1% (n = 112) were fully compliant with flow diagram reporting. 121 (51.9%) omitted at least one item of the CONSORT reporting template. Significant associations between journal type, CONSORT endorsement by authors, ethical approval status, presence of a published protocol, significance of the primary outcome, involvement of a statistician, presence of conflict of interest, center type, type of analysis undertaken and the presence/ no presence of a flow diagram were present. Across the study timeframe, the odds of inclusion of RCT flow diagram increased per additional year (OR:1.47; 95%CI:1.34,1.61; p < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Only five orthodontic journals.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Despite improvements over time, the inclusion and reporting of CONSORT flow diagram for parallel group RCTs in trials published in orthodontic journals requires improvement. To mitigate potential biased interpretation of trial results, journal editors should ensure a complete CONSORT flow diagram is submitted by researchers.

Reporting of flow diagrams in randomised controlled trials published in periodontology and implantology: a survey

BACKGROUND

Item 13 of the CONSORT guidelines recommends documentation of the participant flow in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) using a diagram. In the medical literature, the reporting of the flow of participants in RCTs has been assessed to be inadequate. The quality of reporting flow diagrams in periodontology and implantology remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting of flow diagrams in RCTs published in periodontology and implantology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RCTs published between 15^th January 2018 and 15^th January 2022 in twelve high-ranked periodontology and implantology journals were identified. Trial characteristics at the RCT level were extracted. The flow diagram included in each RCT was assessed for completeness of reporting in relation to published criteria and the CONSORT flow diagram template.

RESULTS

From the 544 eligible articles, 85% were single-centre, 82% of parallel-group design and 79% investigated surgical interventions. Three-hundred and fifteen (58%) articles were published in CONSORT endorsing journals. A flow diagram was reported in 317 (58%) trials and reporting was more common in periodontology (73.1%). Overall, 56% of publications with a flow diagram reported a complete CONSORT flow diagram, while in 44% of flow diagrams, at least one point from the CONSORT reporting template was missing. Reasons for loss to follow-up (69.7%) and exclusions from the RCT analysis (86.4%) were poorly reported.

CONCLUSION

The reporting of flow diagrams in periodontology and implantology RCTs was sub-optimal. Greater awareness of the importance of fully completing the participant CONSORT flow diagram is required.

Effects of Cognitive and Physical Loads on Dynamic and Static Balance Performance of Healthy Older Adults Under Single-, Dual-, and Multi-task Conditions

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to examine the effects of cognitive and physical loads on dynamic and static balance performance of healthy older adults under single-, dual-, and multi-task conditions.

BACKGROUND

Previous studies on postural control in older adults have generally used dual-task methodology, whereas less attention has been paid to multi-task performance, despite its importance in many daily and occupational activities.

METHOD

The effects of single versus combined (dual-task and multi-task) cognitive (to speak out the name of the weekdays in a reverse order) and physical (with three levels including handling weights of 1, 2, and 3 kg in each hand) loads on dynamic and static balance performance of 42 older adults (21 males and 21 females) aged ≥60 years were examined. Dynamic and static balance measures were evaluated using the Timed Up and Go (TUG) and stabilometer (sway index) tests, respectively.

RESULTS

The TUG speed of female participants was generally slower than that of male participants. Age had no effect on balance performance measures. Under dual-task conditions, cognitive load decreased the dynamic balance performance, while the physical task levels had no effect. The dual-task conditions had no impact on the static balance performance. The effects of cognitive and physical loads on dynamic balance performance varied under dual- and multi-task conditions.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight differences between dual- and multi-task protocols and add to the understanding of balance performance in older adults under cognitive and physical loads.

APPLICATION

The present study highlights differences between dual- and multi-task methodologies that need to be considered in future studies of balance and control in older adults.