| Methods |
Observational study to determine the quality of reporting key methodological factors in RCTs since the publication of the CONSORT Statement and if CONSORT endorsement by journals of the checklist was associated with superior reporting. 11 key methodological factors
Examined the quality of reporting in relation to whether a journal was a 'CONSORT promoter' as defined by inclusion of the CONSORT checklist in a journal’s 'information to authors' section or a requirement that authors, manuscript reviewers, or copy editors complete the CONSORT checklist |
| Data |
7 journals were confirmed to meet our definition of CONSORT endorser, versus 19 non‐endorsing journals |
| Comparisons |
CONSORT endorsers versus non‐endorsers |
| Outcomes |
Allocation concealment, sequence generation, statistical methods, participant flow, baseline data, blinding: outcome assessor, intervention, data analyst, participants |
| Included number of RCTs, Journals |
105, 26 |
| Checklist version used |
1996 |
| Field of Study |
Internal medicine |
| Notes |
This study was included in the original review |
| Risk of bias |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Description |
| Large Cohort ? |
No |
3 journals, shorter time period |
| Blinding? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Confounding by journal quality? |
Unclear |
Quote: "We conducted a multivariable analysis (i.e., least squares regression) in which the dependent variable was the number of factors included in each article and the independent variables were the impact factor of the journal" |
| Outcome Reporting? |
Yes |
No evidence of selective reporting |
| Multiple raters? |
Yes |
Quote: "Two of us (W.G. and G.G.) independently evaluated all summaries" |
| Rater agreement? |
Yes |
> 0.8 |
| Blinding, quality assessment? |
Yes |
Not applicable |
