SynthesisPrimary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group2013
The quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in asthma: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adaptive designs were primarily used but inadequately reported in early phase drug trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement.PloS one · 2021Article
- More pilot trials could plan to use qualitative data: a meta-epidemiological study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2020Article
- 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
- Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial.BMC medicine · 2015Article
- Poor reporting may infer poor science: lessons learned from asthma trials.Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2013Article
- Compliance of Published Randomized Controlled Trials on the Effect of Physical Activity on Primary Dysmenorrhea with the Consortium's Integrated Report on Clinical Trials Statement: A Critical Appraisal of the Literature.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery researchReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are concerns about the reporting quality of asthma trials.
aimsTo describe the reporting of contemporary asthma trials and to identify factors associated with better reporting quality.
methodsTwo reviewers independently searched MEDLINE for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of asthma published between January 2010 and July 2012 in leading generalist and specialist journals. We calculated the proportion of trials that adequately reported each Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist item and an overall quality score for each trial. Factors associated with better reporting quality were investigated.
resultsThirty-five RCTs satisfied our eligibility criteria. Four trials adequately reported <50% of the items, 15 adequately reported 50-60% of items, and 16 adequately reported >60% of items. Seventeen of the 38 CONSORT items were consistently well reported in more than two-thirds of the articles. In contrast, nine items were poorly reported in more than half the trials - namely, identification as a randomised trial in the title (40.0%), an adequate structured summary/abstract (48.6%), details of eligibility criteria (34.3%), recruitment (48.6%), randomisation procedures (22.9%), intervention (38.5%), harms (34.3%), the funding source (45.7%), and access to the full trial protocol (17.1%). Studies led by teams in high-income country settings were associated with better quality of reporting (relative risk=1.33, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.64).
conclusionsThe quality of reporting in contemporary asthma literature remains suboptimal. We have identified important areas in which reporting quality needs to be improved.
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.