ArticleCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Quality of Reporting in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials: From 2011 to 2015.
Article in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Short-term outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched or baseline-balanced retrospective studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic review on the effectiveness of robot-assisted minimally invasive gastrectomy.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2024Pooled it
- Methodology of analysis of cognitive impairment in longitudinal randomized clinical trials in oncology: a scoping review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
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
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are important for evidence-based medicine; however, their quality of reporting remains to be evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the report concerning solid tumor medication. Articles were searched in PubMed to identify all oncology phase III RCTs published from 2011 to 2015, and the results were classified manually through Endnote X7.0 software. Registration rate, primary end point (PEP) consistency, positive result rate, enrollment time point, outcome feedback in the registry, and publish time zone were extracted and assessed. The overall registration rate was higher than years before; nevertheless, a portion of trials showed PEP discrepancies and enrolled patients before registration in either journal formats. Trials published in top 5 general medical journals paid more attention to results feedback on registration websites and were more prompt with publication after study accomplishment. Our data suggested general medical journals may be more rigorous compared to oncology journals but identified a preference for positive results. On the whole, RCTs published between 2011 and 2015 seemed fairly standardized. Surveillance in registry and outcome feedback still needs to be strengthened for the stringency and reliability of clinical trials in solid tumor medication territory.
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.