Table 3.

Univariable logistic regressions of MD reporting criteria and other risk of bias CONSORT reporting criteria with JIF and whether the journal endorsed the CONSORT statement

Reporting criterion	JIF			CONSORT endorsement status
	Odds ratio per doubling JIF	P	95% Confidence interval	Odds ratio	P	95% Confidence interval
MD reporting criteria
Account for all participantsa	1.54	0.001	1.20–1.97	2.46	0.1	0.73–8.23
Report number of participants not included in the primary outcome analysisa	1.39	0.001	1.15–1.69	1.20	0.8	0.31–4.70
Report reasons for MDa,b	0.88	0.5	0.63–1.23	0.65	0.5	0.20–2.17
Report plans to minimize MD	1.16	0.17	0.94–1.42	1.00	1.00	0.40–2.49
Compare baseline characteristics of participants with and without MD	1.50	<0.001	1.20–1.87	1.11	0.83	0.42–2.92
Report methods used to handle MD	1.40	0.002	1.13–1.73	2.53	0.03	1.08–5.94
Report MD sensitivity analyses	1.20	0.4	0.81–1.80	3.48	0.03	1.15–10.50
Discuss impact of MD on the interpretation of findings	1.14	0.2	0.93–1.41	1.85	0.1	0.85–4.04
Other CONSORT 2010 risk of bias reporting criteria
Report method of sequence generationa	1.09	0.2	0.94–1.26	1.79	0.2	0.79–4.03
Report method of allocation sequence concealmenta	1.29	0.01	1.06–1.57	2.03	0.2	0.36–6.55
Report blinding participants & personnela	1.09	0.2	0.96–1.25	1.32	0.6	0.51–3.41
Report method of blinding outcome assessmenta	1.04	0.5	0.91–1.19	1.41	0.5	0.55–3.62

Abbreviations: MD, missing data; CONSORT, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; JIF, journal impact factor.

^aCONSORT 2010 recommendation.

^bAssessed as whether they reported any reasons for MD.