ReviewBMJ open2019
Using the CONSORT statement to evaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised trials: a cross-sectional review.
Review in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The design and reporting of sham acupuncture and its association with the efficacy in acupuncture randomized controlled trials for migraine.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in pediatric dentistry: reporting quality and spin.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Methodology over metrics: current scientific standards are a disservice to patients and society.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Quality Evaluation of Randomized Controlled Trials ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Review
- Evaluation of reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in patients with COVID-19 using the CONSORT statement.PloS one · 2021Article
- A Review of Adherence and Predictors of Adherence to the CONSORT Statement in the Reporting of Tuberculosis Vaccine Trials.Vaccines · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEvaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.
settingNot applicable.
participantsRCTs identified using a PubMed search of 15 addiction journals and a 5-year cross-section. OUTCOME MEASURES: Completeness of reporting.
resultsOur analysis of 394 addiction RCTs found that the mean number of CONSORT items reported was 19.2 (SD 5.2), out of a possible 31. Twelve items were reported in <50% of RCTs; similarly, 12 items were reported in >75% of RCTs. Journal endorsement of CONSORT was found to improve the number of CONSORT items reported.
conclusionsPoor reporting quality may prohibit readers from critically appraising the methodological quality of addiction trials. We recommend journal endorsement of CONSORT since our study and those previous have shown that CONSORT endorsement improves the quality of 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.