| Methods |
Evaluates trial reporting by using the CONSORT Statement recommendations for trials published in or after 1990; the checklist was modified to include 33 items
Trials published between 1990‐1997 and 1998‐2002 were compared to see if CONSORT had an influence on the quality of reporting |
| Data |
15 trials from 9 journals, only 1 journal deemed to be an endorsing journal |
| Comparisons |
Before and after CONSORT publication |
| Outcomes |
Title and abstract, background, participants, interventions, objectives, outcomes, sample size, sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation, blinding of: participants, data analyst and outcome assessor, statistical methods, participant flow, recruitment, baseline data, numbers analysed, outcomes and estimation, ancillary analyses, adverse events |
| Included number of RCTs, Journals |
14, 9 |
| Checklist version used |
1996 |
| Field of Study |
Cerebral palsy |
| Notes |
Data needed provided in the appendix; recategorised data to be compliant with our comparison |
| Risk of bias |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Description |
| Large Cohort ? |
No |
15 included RCTs |
| Blinding? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Confounding by journal quality? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Outcome Reporting? |
Yes |
No difference between planned and reported outcomes/analyses |
| Multiple raters? |
Yes |
Quote: "Two researchers (R.K. and H.A.) independently evaluated the quality of reporting in the identified trials by using this modified checklist." |
| Rater agreement? |
No |
Quote: "The evaluators disagreed in 23% of the evaluations." |
| Blinding, quality assessment? |
Yes |
Not applicable |
