ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012
Presentation of continuous outcomes in randomised trials: an observational study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Campbell Collaboration's systematic review of school-based anti-bullying interventions does not meet mandatory methodological standards.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo characterise the percentage of available outcome data being presented in reports of randomised clinical trials with continuous outcome measures, thereby determining the potential for incomplete reporting bias.
designDescriptive cross sectional study. DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 200 randomised trials from issues of 20 medical journals in a variety of specialties during 2007-09.
main outcome measuresFor each paper's best reported primary outcome, we calculated the fraction of data reported using explicit scoring rules. For example, a two arm trial with 100 patients per limb that reported 2 sample sizes, 2 means, and 2 standard deviations reported 6/200 data elements (1.5%), but if that paper included a scatterplot with 200 points it would score 200/200 (100%). We also assessed compliance with 2001 CONSORT items about the reporting of results.
resultsThe median percentage of data reported for the best reported continuous outcome was 9% (interquartile range 3-26%) but only 3.5% (3-7%) when we adjusted studies to 100 patients per arm to control for varying study size; 17% of articles showed 100% of the data. Tables were the predominant means of presenting the most data (59% of articles), but papers that used figures reported a higher proportion of data. There was substantial heterogeneity among journals with respect to our primary outcome and CONSORT compliance. LIMITATIONS: We studied continuous outcomes of randomised trials in higher impact journals. Results may not apply to categorical outcomes, other study designs, or other journals.
conclusionsTrialists present only a small fraction of available data. This paucity of data may increase the potential for incomplete reporting bias, a failure to present all relevant information about a study's findings.
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.