Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26166088›Full record

ReviewMedicine2015

Methodological Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in 3 Leading Diabetes Journals From 2011 to 2013 Following CONSORT Statement: A System Review.

Xiao Zhai, Yiran Wang, Qingchun Mu, Xiao Chen, Qin Huang, Qijin Wang, Ming Li

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. [Development of Reporting Guidelines of Articles in theJugan geon-gang gwa jilbyeong · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Xiao ZhaiFrom Graduate Management Unit, Changhai Hospital Affiliated to the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, PR China (XZ and YW); Department of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital Affiliated to the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, PR China (XZ and ML); Department of Endocrinology, Changhai Hospital Affiliated to the Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, PR China (QH and QW); Department of Neurosurgery, the First Hospital of Jilin University, Jilin, PR China (QM); and Department of Neurosurgery, Hongqi Hospital of Mudanjiang Medical University, Heilongjiang, PR China (QM).
Yiran Wang
Qingchun Mu
Xiao Chen
Qin Huang
Qijin Wang
Ming Li

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To appraise the current reporting methodological quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in 3 leading diabetes journals.We systematically searched the literature for RCTs in Diabetes Care, Diabetes and Diabetologia from 2011 to 2013.Characteristics were extracted based on Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. Generation of allocation, concealment of allocation, intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and handling of dropouts were defined as primary outcome and "low risk of bias." Sample size calculation, type of intervention, country, number of patients, funding source were also revealed and descriptively reported. Trials were compared among journals, study years, and other characters.A total of 305 RCTs were enrolled in this study. One hundred eight (35.4%) trials reported adequate generation of allocation, 87 (28.5%) trials reported adequate concealment of allocation, 53 (23.8%) trials used ITT analysis, and 130 (58.3%) trials were adequate in handling of dropouts. Only 15 (4.9%) were "low risk of bias" trials. Studies at a large scale (n > 100) or from European presented with more "low risk of bias" trials than those at a small scale (n ≤ 100) or from other regions. No improvements were found in these 3 years.This study shows that methodological reporting quality of RCTs in the major diabetes journals remains suboptimal. It can be further improved to meet and keep up with the standards of the CONSORT statement.

Indexed as

Research DesignDiabetes MellitusFinancial SupportHumansPeriodicals as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26166088
PMCPMC4504558

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.