Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32198306›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Benjamin Speich, Sara Schroter, Matthias Briel, David Moher, Iratxe Puebla, Alejandra Clark, Michael Maia Schlüssel, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron, Sally Hopewell

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. 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. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Day-Case Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Successful Pilot in Regional New Zealand.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  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

10 authors.

Benjamin SpeichCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK benjamin.speich@ndorms.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3301-8085
Sara SchroterThe BMJ, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8791-8564
Matthias BrielBasel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206
Iratxe PueblaPLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1258-0746
Alejandra ClarkPLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, Cambridge, UK.
Michael Maia SchlüsselCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1711-9310
Philippe RavaudUniversité de Paris, CRESS, Inserm, INRA, F75004, Paris, France.
Isabelle BoutronUniversité de Paris, CRESS, Inserm, INRA, F75004, Paris, France.
Sally HopewellCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27294
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTransparent and accurate reporting is essential for readers to adequately interpret the results of a study. Journals can play a vital role in improving the reporting of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We describe an RCT to evaluate our hypothesis that asking peer reviewers to check whether the most important and poorly reported CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) items are adequately reported will result in higher adherence to CONSORT guidelines in published RCTs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Manuscripts presenting the primary results of RCTs submitted to participating journals will be randomised to either the intervention group (peer reviewers will receive a reminder and short explanation of the 10 most important and poorly reported CONSORT items; they will be asked to check if these items are reported in the submitted manuscript) or a control group (usual journal practice). The primary outcome will be the mean proportion of the 10 items that are adequately reported in the published articles. Peer reviewers and manuscript authors will not be informed of the study hypothesis, design or intervention. Outcomes will be assessed in duplicate from published articles by two data extractors (at least one blinded to the intervention). We will enrol eligible manuscripts until a minimum of 83 articles per group (166 in total) are published. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This pragmatic RCT was approved by the Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee of the University of Oxford (R62779/RE001). If this intervention is effective, it could be implemented by all medical journals without requiring large additional resources at journal level. Findings will be disseminated through presentations in relevant conferences and peer-reviewed publications. This trial is registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/c4hn8).

Indexed as

Peer Review, ResearchChecklistHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicmedical education & trainingprotocols & guidelinesquality in healthcarestatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID32198306
PMCPMC7103787

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.