| Methods |
Determined whether the CONSORT recommendations influenced the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of psychiatry
Evaluated the quality of clinical trial reports before and after the introduction of CONSORT Statement
Trials were published from period of 1992–1996 (pre‐CONSORT) and 2002–2007 (post CONSORT) |
| Data |
166 pre‐CONSORT RCTs were compared across all CONSORT items with 276 post CONSORT items |
| Comparisons |
CONSORT‐endorsing journals before and after endorsement |
| Outcomes |
Title and abstract, background, participants, interventions, objectives, outcomes, sample size, sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation, blinding any, statistical methods, participant flow, recruitment, baseline data, numbers analysed, outcomes and estimation, ancillary analyses, adverse events, interpretation, generalisability, overall evidence |
| Included number of RCTs, Journals |
442, 7 |
| Checklist version used |
2001 |
| Field of Study |
Psychiatry |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Description |
| Large Cohort ? |
Yes |
7 journals over 9 years search via PubMed |
| Blinding? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Confounding by journal quality? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Outcome Reporting? |
Yes |
No evidence of selective outcome reporting |
| Multiple raters? |
Yes |
2 raters assessed items |
| Rater agreement? |
Yes |
Concordance rate reported of 95% |
| Blinding, quality assessment? |
Yes |
Not applicable |
