| Methods |
Compared analytic quality features of all behavioural health RCTs (n = 73) published in 3 leading behavioural journals and 2 leading medical journals between January 2000 and July 2003 |
| Data |
15 endorsing RCTs and 58 non‐endorsing RCTs |
| Comparisons |
CONSORT endorsers versus non‐endorsers |
| Outcomes |
Outcomes, sample size, participant flow, numbers analysed |
| Included number of RCTs, Journals |
73, 5 |
| Checklist version used |
Modification of 2001 version |
| Field of Study |
Behavioural health |
| Notes |
This is the companion study to Pagoto 2009
Provides supplementary outcomes data, included in a different comparison
Endorsement of journals confirmed |
| Risk of bias |
| Item |
Authors' judgement |
Description |
| Large Cohort ? |
Unclear |
5 journals over 3 years, judgement based on number of RCTs in endorsing group |
| Blinding? |
Unclear |
Quote: "It was not deemed necessary to mask the articles." |
| Confounding by journal quality? |
No |
Quote: "Perhaps if mental health had been the outcome, the analytic quality of RCTs reported in psychology journals might have been superior because of the longer history of studying that content area in psychology" |
| Outcome Reporting? |
Yes |
No evidence of selective outcome reporting |
| Multiple raters? |
Yes |
Quote: "Each article was reviewed and coded by two people, using all possible combinations of pairs of rater" |
| Rater agreement? |
No |
Quote: "Average intercoder agreement across the 73 articles was 85% prior to resolving discrepant rating" |
| Blinding, quality assessment? |
Unclear |
Not reported |
