Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 8;21:620. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04440-w

Table 4.

Source of evidence provided to support each outcome reporting recommendation (n = 1758) identified within 244 eligible documents

N (%)
Empirical evidence provided within source document and/or citations provided 1027 (58.4)
No empirical evidence or citations provided 731 (41.6)
Empirical evidence provided within source documenta 704 (40.0)
 Literature review 513 (29.2)
  Systematic and/or scoping review 290 (16.5)
  Assessment of reporting completenessb 170 (9.7)
  Other type of review 68 (3.9)
 Expert consensus 373 (21.2)
 Interview 12 (0.7)
 Case study 2 (0.1)
 Survey 1 (0.06)
Citation(s) provided to other document(s)a 582 (33.1)
 Citations to existing reporting guidelines
  SPIRIT-PRO 253 (14.4)
  CONSORT-PRO 241 (13.7)
  CONSORT 141 (8.0)
  SPIRIT 42 (2.4)
  Other CONSORT extensions 26 (1.5)
 Citations to selected key guidance documentsc
  ICH E6 Good Clinical Practice Guideline 71 (4.0)
  International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL)-recommended PRO reporting standards 14 (7.9)
  ICH E9 Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials 8 (0.5)
  International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) 7 (0.4)
  ICH E3 Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports 5 (0.3)
  Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) publication 4 (0.2)
  ClinicalTrials.gov guidelines 3 (0.2)
  Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) publications 2 (0.1)

CONSORT Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, ICH International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, PRO Patient Reported Outcomes, SPIRIT Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials

aEmpirical evidence within the source document and citation provided to other document categorizations were not mutually exclusive, nor are the subcategories within each

bIncludes any type of literature review that aimed to assess the completeness of reporting in the included articles from either an original review or a secondary analyses of documents included in a prior review

cThe complete list of citations provided to other documents can be found in the online dataset