ArticleTrials2012
Assessment of adherence to the CONSORT statement for quality of reports on randomized controlled trial abstracts from four high-impact general medical journals.
Article in Trials, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 11 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
64 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Large Language Model Analysis of Reporting Quality of Randomized Clinical Trial Articles: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- The efficacy and safety of soluble guanylate cyclase modulation in patients with heart failure: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Prepublication abstract-only reports compared with full-text manuscripts for randomised controlled trials in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2024Pooled it
- Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review.Cancer medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Pooled it
- The efficacy and safety of soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research.Evidence-based medicine · 2017Guideline
- Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Reporting quality of abstracts in phase III clinical trials of systemic therapy in metastatic solid malignancies.Trials · 2015Pooled it
- Assessing blinding in trials of psychiatric disorders: a meta-analysis based on blinding index.Psychiatry research · 2014Pooled it
- Evaluation of methodology, reporting and transparency of 50 highly cited randomised trials in neurology: a cross-sectional analysis.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials and factors associated with complete reporting: a meta-research study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Quality of Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Three of the Most Citable Periodontal Journals from 2018 to 2022.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in pediatric dentistry: reporting quality and spin.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Methodology reporting improved over time in 176,469 randomized controlled trials.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
- Review
- Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe extended Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for Abstracts was developed to improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because readers often base their assessment of a trial solely on the abstract. To date, few data exist regarding whether it has achieved this goal. We evaluated the extent of adherence to the CONSORT for Abstract statement for quality of reports on RCT abstracts by four high-impact general medical journals.
methodsA descriptive analysis of published RCT abstracts in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), The Lancet, The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA), and the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in the year 2010 was conducted by two reviewers, independently extracting data from a MEDLINE/PubMed search.
resultsWe identified 271 potential RCT abstracts meeting our inclusion criteria. More than half of the abstracts identified the study as randomized in the title (58.7%; 159/271), reported the specific objective/hypothesis (72.7%; 197/271), described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection (60.9%; 165/271), detailed the interventions for both groups (90.8%; 246/271), and clearly defined the primary outcome (94.8%; 257/271). However, the methodological quality domains were inadequately reported: allocation concealment (11.8%; 32/271) and details of blinding (21.0%; 57/271). Reporting the primary outcome results for each group was done in 84.1% (228/271). Almost all of the abstracts reported trial registration (99.3%; 269/271), whereas reports of funding and of harm or side effects from the interventions were found in only 47.6% (129/271) and 42.8% (116/271) of the abstracts, respectively.
conclusionsThese findings show inconsistencies and non-adherence to the CONSORT for abstract guidelines, especially in the methodological quality domains. Improvements in the quality of RCT reports can be expected by adhering to existing standards and guidelines as expressed by the CONSORT group.
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.