Ladd 2010.

Methods	Aim of this study was to examine if adopting CONSORT standards of reporting improved the quality of reporting of alcohol treatment outcome studies RCTs were identified from 8 journals publishing a substantial number of alcohol treatment outcome studies (n = 127 RCTs) and coded for the quality of reporting according to the CONSORT guidelines
Data	Pre‐CONSORT 70 RCTs, post CONSORT 89 RCTs, 1 endorsing journal of 19 RCTs and 108 RCTs from non‐endorsing journals
Comparisons	CONSORT endorsers versus non‐endorsers, cross‐sectional sample before and after CONSORT publication
Outcomes	CONSORT endorsers before and after endorsement: title and abstract, background, interventions, outcomes, sequence generation, allocation concealment, statistical methods, participant flow, numbers analysed, outcomes and estimation, adverse events Endorsers versus non‐endorsers: title and abstract, introduction, objectives, outcomes, sample size, sequence generation, blinding any, statistical methods, participant flow, numbers analysed, outcomes and estimation, ancillary analyses, interpretation, generalisability and overall evidence
Included number of RCTs, Journals	127, 8
Checklist version used	2001, 1996 comparison for pre‐post
Field of Study	Alcohol outcome studies
Notes	Author provided data for the review; some dates of journal endorsement provided by MEs are vague; these have been conservatively categorised as non‐endorsers; in turn, definition is compliant for this study For before and after, 3 time periods reported; to allow for improvement in quality of reporting over time, conservatively, we included 1989‐1995 and 1996‐2002 in our analysis
Risk of bias
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Large Cohort ?	Yes	Large number of trials from 8 journals over a long time period
Blinding?	Unclear	Quote: "It was not feasible to mask year published and author due to high rates of self‐citation and dates in reference lists. However, names of the source journals for each article were concealed from coders"
Confounding by journal quality?	Yes	Stratified analysis. Quote: "Studies published pre‐CONSORT (1994–1998) did not differ significantly on overall CONSORT score between adopter and nonadopter journals"
Outcome Reporting?	Yes	No evidence of selective outcome reporting
Multiple raters?	Yes	Quote: "Four coders (the four authors) coded the articles for this study. Twenty percent of studies were randomly selected to be double‐coded throughout the coding process"
Rater agreement?	Unclear	Not reported
Blinding, quality assessment?	Yes	Not applicable