Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29531032›Full record

ReviewProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018

Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions.

Guowei Li, Meha Bhatt, Mei Wang, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Zainab Samaan, Lehana Thabane

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. P-hacking in clinical trials and how incentives shape the distribution of results across phases.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Reproducibility of research: Issues and proposed remedies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    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

6 authors.

Guowei LiDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8.
Meha BhattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8.
Mei WangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8.
Lawrence MbuagbawDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8.
Zainab SamaanDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8; thabanl@mcmaster.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence from a well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) is generally considered to be the gold standard that can inform clinical practice and guide decision-making. However, several deficiencies in the reporting of RCTs have frequently been identified, including incomplete, selective, and biased or inconsistent reporting. Such suboptimal reporting may lead to irreproducible results, substantial waste of resources, impaired study validity, erosion of public trust in science, and a high risk of research misconduct. In this article, we present an overview of the reporting of RCTs in the biomedical literature with a focus on the three most common reporting problems: (

Indexed as

HumansPeer ReviewPublicationsQuality ControlRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Designguideline adherenceinconsistent reportingrandomized controlled trialreporting qualitytransparency

Identifiers

PMID29531032
PMCPMC5856506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.