ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2014
Methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in three spine journals from 2010 to 2012.
Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of sample size calculations and reporting in randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology over a 20-year period.International ophthalmology · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Intervention Reporting of Published Trials Is Insufficient in Orthopaedic Surgery Journals: Application of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2021Article
- Trends and predictors of biomedical research quality, 1990-2015: a meta-research study.BMJ open · 2019Review
- Assessing the quality of reports about randomized controlled trials of scalp acupuncture combined with another treatment for stroke.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2017Article
- Article
- Review
- Quality of reporting on randomized controlled trials on recurrent spontaneous abortion in China.Trials · 2015Review
- The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2014.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2015Review
- Randomized clinical trials: in pursuit of higher standards.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo elucidate the methodological reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three spine journals from 2010 to 2012.
methodsIn this study, we summarized the methodological report of RCTs in three major spine journals, including the Spine Journal, Spine and the European Spine Journal from 2010 to 2012. The methodological reporting quality, including the allocation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and sample size calculation, was revealed. Number of patients, funding source, type of intervention and country were also retrieved from each trial. The methodological reporting quality was descriptively reported.
resultsNinety trials were involved and 57.8% (52/90) reported adequate allocation sequence generation, 46.7% (42/90) reported adequate allocation concealment, 34.4% (31/90) reported adequate blinding and 37.8% (34/90) reported adequate sample size calculation.
conclusionsThis study shows that the methodological reporting quality of RCTs in the spine field needs further improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24748442What 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.