Trial reportBMJ open2020
Effect of an editorial intervention to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03751878 (Evaluating the Impact of Assessing During Peer Review the CONSORT Checklist Submitted by Authors), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 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.
Evaluating the Impact of Assessing During Peer Review the CONSORT Checklist Submitted by Authors: a Randomised Controlled Trial
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- There is no reliable evidence that providing authors with customized article templates including items from reporting guidelines improves completeness of reporting: the GoodReports randomized trial (GRReaT).BMC medical research methodology · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025Article
- Open science interventions to improve reproducibility and replicability of research: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Reliability and reproducibility of systematic reviews informing the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans: a pilot study.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Enhancing reporting through structure: a before and after study on the effectiveness of SPIRIT-based templates to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trial protocols.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Reviewer training for improving grant and journal peer review.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Methodology reporting improved over time in 176,469 randomized controlled trials.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
- Evaluating dermatology journals' use of reporting guidelines in "Author Guidelines".Archives of dermatological research · 2023Article
- Reminding Peer Reviewers of Reporting Guideline Items to Improve Completeness in Published Articles: Primary Results of 2 Randomized Trials.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- The reporting of prognostic prediction models for obstetric care was poor: a cross-sectional survey of 10-year publications.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Article
- Did an introduction of CONSORT for abstracts guidelines improve reporting quality of randomised controlled trials' abstracts onBMJ open · 2022Observational
- Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative).Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Article
- Development of a checklist to detect errors in meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: study protocol.F1000Research · 2021Article
- Completeness of reporting acupuncture interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Review of adherence to the STRICTA statement.F1000Research · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of an editorial intervention to improve completeness of reporting of reports of randomised trials.
designRandomised controlled trial (RCT).
setting
participants24 manuscripts describing RCTs.
interventionsWe used an R Shiny application to randomise manuscripts (1:1 allocation ratio, blocks of 4) to the intervention (n=12) or control (n=12) group. The intervention was performed by a researcher with expertise in the content of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and consisted of an evaluation of completeness of reporting of eight core CONSORT items using the submitted checklist to locate information, and the production of a report containing specific requests for authors based on the reporting issues found, provided alongside the peer review reports. The control group underwent the usual peer review. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is the number of adequately reported items (0-8 scale) in the revised manuscript after the first round of peer review. The main analysis was intention-to-treat (n=24), and we imputed the scores of lost to follow-up manuscripts (rejected after peer review and not resubmitted). The secondary outcome is the proportion of manuscripts where each item was adequately reported. Two blinded reviewers assessed the outcomes independently and in duplicate and solved disagreements by consensus. We also recorded the amount of time to perform the intervention.
resultsManuscripts in the intervention group (mean: 7.01; SD: 1.47) were more completely reported than those in the control group (mean: 5.68; SD: 1.43) (mean difference 1.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.58). We observed the main differences in items 6a (outcomes), 9 (allocation concealment mechanism), 11a (blinding) and 17a (outcomes and estimation). The mean time to perform the intervention was 87 (SD 42) min.
conclusionsWe demonstrated the benefit of involving a reporting guideline expert in the editorial process. Improving the completeness of RCTs is essential to enhance their usability. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03751878.
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.