ArticlePloS one2020
The effect of the CONSORT statement on the amount of "unclear" Risk of Bias reporting in Cochrane Systematic Reviews.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical trial registration was associated with lower risk of bias compared with non-registered trials among trials included in systematic reviews.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement aims to improve clarity and consistency of transparency of reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool for RCTs helps authors to judge the RoB. as ''low", "high" or "unclear".
objectiveIn this study we aimed to assess whether the implementation and updates of the CONSORT statement influenced the trend of "unclear" RoB scores of RCTs included in Cochrane systematic reviews.
methodsAll Cochrane reviews published in December to October 2016 were retrieved. The publication year of RCTS included in the reviews were sorted into time frames (≤1995, 1996-2000, 2001-2009 and ≥2010) based on the release- and updates of the CONSORT statement (1996, 2001 and 2010). The association between "unclear" RoB versus "low or high" RoB and the year of publication in different time frames were calculated using a binary logistic regression.
resultsData was extracted from 64 Cochrane reviews, with 989 RCTS (6471 items). The logistic regression showed that the odds of RCTs published ≥2010, compared to ≤1995 were more likely not to report an "unclear" RoB for the total data (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.69 (95% Confidence interval: 0.59-0.80)), random sequence generation (OR 0.32 (0.22-0.47), allocation concealment (0.64 (0.43-0.95)) and incomplete outcome data (OR 0.60 (0.39-0.91)).
conclusionA slight decrease of "unclear" RoB reporting over time was found. To improve quality of reporting authors are encouraged to adhere to reporting guidelines.
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.