ArticleBMJ open2016
Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Characteristics of post hoc subgroup analyses of oncology clinical trials: a systematic review.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Pooled it
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
- Article
- Insights of Healthcare Professionals into Medical Writing Support at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia.Cureus · 2024Article
- Frequency and Characteristics of Trials Using Medical Writer Support in High-Impact Oncology Journals.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Professional Medical Writer Assistance in Oncology Clinical Trials.The oncologist · 2020Article
- Professional medical writing support and the quality, ethics and timeliness of clinical trial reporting: a systematic review.Research integrity and peer review · 2019Review
- Professional writers can help to improve clarity of medical writing.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018Article
- Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Article
- Article
- Professional medical writing support and the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial abstracts among high-impact general medical journals.F1000Research · 2017Article
- Knowledge and attitudes of Indian surgeons regarding professional medical writing support.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
- Professional medical writing support: The need of the day.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
- Preparing and Publishing a Scientific Manuscript.Journal of human reproductive sciencesReview
- Accountability or acknowledgment? Untangling authorship and medical writing support in scientific publishing.Perspectives in clinical researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAuthors may choose to work with professional medical writers when writing up their research for publication. We examined the relationship between medical writing support and the quality and timeliness of reporting of the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
designCross-sectional study. STUDY SAMPLE: Primary reports of RCTs published in BioMed Central journals from 2000 to 16 July 2014, subdivided into those with medical writing support (n=110) and those without medical writing support (n=123).
main outcome measuresProportion of items that were completely reported from a predefined subset of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist (12 items known to be commonly poorly reported), overall acceptance time (from manuscript submission to editorial acceptance) and quality of written English as assessed by peer reviewers. The effect of funding source and publication year was examined.
resultsThe number of articles that completely reported at least 50% of the CONSORT items assessed was higher for those with declared medical writing support (39.1% (43/110 articles); 95% CI 29.9% to 48.9%) than for those without (21.1% (26/123 articles); 95% CI 14.3% to 29.4%). Articles with declared medical writing support were more likely than articles without such support to have acceptable written English (81.1% (43/53 articles); 95% CI 67.6% to 90.1% vs 47.9% (23/48 articles); 95% CI 33.5% to 62.7%). The median time of overall acceptance was longer for articles with declared medical writing support than for those without (167 days (IQR 114.5-231 days) vs 136 days (IQR 77-193 days)).
conclusionsIn this sample of open-access journals, declared professional medical writing support was associated with more complete reporting of clinical trial results and higher quality of written English. Medical writing support may play an important role in raising the quality of clinical trial reporting.
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.