| Methods |
Evaluates the reporting quality of key methodological items in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in 4 general clinical ophthalmology journals
The reporting of 11 key methodological items in RCTs published in American Journal of Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, British Journal of Ophthalmology and Ophthalmology in the year 2005 was assessed |
| Data |
51 CONSORT‐endorsing RCTs from 3 journals and 16 non‐endorsing RCTs from 1 journal |
| Comparisons |
CONSORT endorsers versus non‐endorsers |
| Outcomes |
Sample size, sequence generation, allocation concealment, implementation, blinding any, participant flow, numbers analysed, adverse events |
| Included number of RCTs, Journals |
67, 4 |
| Checklist version used |
2001 |
| Field of Study |
Opthalmology |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Description |
| Large Cohort ? |
Unclear |
RCTs published in top 4 journals in subspecialty over 1‐year period ‐ 67 included |
| Blinding? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Confounding by journal quality? |
Yes |
Top 4 impact factor journals in subspecialty ‐ no potential for clustering |
| Outcome Reporting? |
Yes |
No difference between planned and reported outcomes/analyses |
| Multiple raters? |
Yes |
Quote: "Each of the eligible RCTs was evaluated by two of the authors independently according to the revised CONSORT statement." |
| Rater agreement? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
| Blinding, quality assessment? |
Yes |
Not applicable |
