Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 12;13(4):e0195652. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195652

Table 2. Compliance of reporting to the standard CONSORT and CONSORT extension checklists.

Items Total
(n = 318, %)
Chinese
(n = 264, %)
English
(n = 54, %)
1.Title 53 (17.7) 19 (7.2) 34 (63.0)
2.Structured abstracts 240 (75.5) 210 (79.5) 30 (55.6)
3.Description of the experimental treatment, comparator, care providers, centers and blinding status 6 (2.0) 0 (0.0) 6 (11.1)
4.Background and rationale 84 (26.4) 42 (15.9) 42 (77.8)
5.Objectives or hypotheses 267 (84.0) 217 (82.2) 50 (92.6)
6.Trial design 29 (9.1) 17 (6.4) 12 (22.2)
7.Changes to methods after trial commencement with reasons 2 (0.6) 1 (0.4) 1 (1.9)
8.Eligibility criteria for participants 295 (92.8) 242 (91.7) 53 (98.1)
9.Eligibility criteria for centers and those performing the interventions 4 (1.3) 0 (0.0) 4 (7.4)
10.Settings and locations 271 (85.2) 234 (88.6) 37 (68.5)
11.Completely defined pre-specified outcomes 26 (8.2) 0 (0.0) 26 (48.1)
12.Changes to trial outcomes after the trial commenced, with reasons 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
13.How sample size was determined 24 (7.5) 2 (0.8) 22 (40.7)
14.Details of whether and how the clustering by care providers or centers was addressed 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
15.Interim analyses and stopping guidelines 2 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 2 (3.7)
16.Random allocation sequence 154 (48.4) 129 (48.9) 25 (46.3)
17.How care providers were allocated to each trial group 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
18.Type of randomization 34 (11.50) 12 (4.5) 22 (68.8)
19.Allocation concealment 31 (10.5) 17 (6.4) 14 (43.8)
20.Implementation of randomization 15 (4.7) 1 (0.4) 14 (25.9)
21.Blinding 45 (14.2) 9 (3.4) 36 (66.7)
22.Co-interventions were blinded to group assignment 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
23.Similarity of interventions 11 (3.5) 0 (0.0) 11 (20.4)
24.Statistical methods for outcomes 252 (79.2) 206 (78.0) 46 (85.2)
25.Details of whether and how the clustering by care providers or centers was addressed 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
26.Methods for additional analyses 14 (4.4) 1 (0.4) 13 (24.1)
27.Participant flow diagram 31 (9.7) 0 (0.0) 31 (57.4)
28.Number of care providers or centers and the number of patients treated by each care provider center 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
29.Losses and exclusions after randomization, together with reason 29 (9.1) 0 (0.0) 29 (53.7)
30.Dates of recruitment and follow-up 246 (77.4) 212 (80.3) 34 (63.0)
31.Why the trial ended or was stopped 5 (1.6) 3 (1.1) 2 (3.7)
32.Baseline data 149 (46.9) 103 (39.0) 46 (85.2)
33.Description of care providers and centers 5 (1.6) 0 (0.0) 5 (9.3)
34.Numbers analyzed 210 (66.0) 173 (65.5) 37 (68.5)
35.For each primary and secondary outcome, results for each group, and the estimated effect size and its precision 78 (24.5) 55 (20.8) 23 (42.6)
36.For binary outcomes, presentation of both absolute and relative effect sizes is recommended
37.Ancillary analyses 12 (3.8) 0 (0.0) 12 (22.2)
38.Harms 67 (21.1) 34 (12.9) 33 (61.1)
39.Limitations 47 (14.8) 20 (7.6) 27 (50.0)
40.Generalizability 279 (87.7) 227 (86.0) 52 (96.3)
41.Generalizability of the trial findings according to the intervention, comparators and patients, etc 15 (4.7) 0 (0.0) 15 (27.8)
42.Interpretation 146 (45.9) 97 (36.7) 49 (90.7)
43.Take into account the choice of the comparator, lack of or partial blinding, unequal expertise of care providers or centers in each group 14 (4.4) 0 (0.0) 14 (25.9)
44.Registration 14 (4.4) 1 (0.4) 13 (24.1)
45.Protocol 15 (4.7) 1 (0.4) 14 (25.9)
46.Funding 95 (29.9) 65 (24.6) 30 (55.6)
Summarized scores
Standard CONSORT 12 (10–14) 11 (10–14) 21 (15–25)
CONSORT Extension 3 (3–5) 3 (3–3) 4 (3–5)

: Items related to CONSORT Extension for Trials Assessing Non-Pharmacological Treatments

: Score was showed as Median (interquartile range)