SynthesisPediatrics2011
Quality of reporting of neonatal and infant trials in high-impact journals.
Synthesis in Pediatrics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The under reporting of recruitment strategies in research with children with life-threatening illnesses: A systematic review.Palliative medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Definitions of extubation success in very premature infants: a systematic review.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2014Pooled it
- The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review.Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2013Pooled it
- Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2018Review
- Do trials reduce uncertainty? Assessing impact through cumulative meta-analysis of neonatal RCTs.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2017Article
- Recent controversies on comparative effectiveness research investigations: Challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls.Seminars in perinatology · 2016Article
- Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in chiropractic using the CONSORT checklist.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2016Article
- Comparison of Drug Utilization Patterns in Observational Data: Antiepileptic Drugs in Pediatric Patients.Paediatric drugs · 2015Article
- Levels of evidence: a comparison between top medical journals and general pediatric journals.BMC pediatrics · 2015Article
- The effects of industry sponsorship on comparator selection in trial registrations for neuropsychiatric conditions in children.PloS one · 2013Article
- Article
- Do health care institutions value research? A mixed methods study of barriers and facilitators to methodological rigor in pediatric randomized trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2012Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo perform a systematic review of the quality of reporting for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with infants and neonates that were published in high-impact journals and to identify RCT characteristics associated with quality of reporting.
methodsRCTs that enrolled infants younger than 12 months and were published in 2005-2009 in 6 pediatric or general medical journals were reviewed. Eligible RCTs were evaluated for the presence of 11 quality criteria selected from the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. The relationships between quality of reporting and key study characteristics were tested with nonparametric statistics.
resultsTwo reviewers had very good agreement regarding the eligibility of studies (κ = 0.85) and the presence of quality criteria (κ = 0.82). Among 179 eligible RCTs, reporting of the individual quality criteria varied widely. Only 50% included a flow diagram, but 99% reported the number of study participants. Higher quality of reporting was associated with greater numbers of study participants, publication in a general medical journal, and greater numbers of centers (P < .0001 for each comparison). Geographic region and positive study outcomes were not associated with reporting quality.
conclusionsThe quality of reporting of infant and neonatal RCTs is inconsistent, particularly in pediatric journals. Therefore, readers cannot assess accurately the validity of many RCT results. Strict adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines should lead to improved reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.