Table 5.
CONSORT quality assessment of abstracts from RCTs on maintenance treatment in AML
| Reference | Authors |
Design |
Methods | Results | Conclusions |
Registration |
Funding |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3a | 3b | 3c | 3d | 3e | 3f | 4a | 4b | 4c | 4d | 4e | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Positive trials are shown in bold. Details of scoring are provided in Moher et al.8 0 corresponds to the absence and 1 corresponds to the presence of a potential deficiency. The following score/domain correspondence was used: 1, authors; 2, design; 3a, participants; 3b, interventions; 3c, objective; 3d, outcome; 3e, randomization; 3f, blinding (masking); 4a, numbers randomized; 4b, recruitment; 4c, numbers analyzed; 4d, outcomes; 4e, harms; 5, conclusions; 6, registration; 7, funding.