ReviewJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2021
Analysis of the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in anticoagulant versus antiplatelet medication for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis as governed by the CONSORT statement.
Review in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Assessment of the Reporting Quality of Randomized, Controlled Trials of Percutaneous Patent Foramen Ovale Closure for the Treatment of Migraine Based on the CONSORT Statement.Innovations in clinical neuroscienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard research in evaluating healthcare interventions. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement improves the quality of RCTs in an evidence-based approach. To evaluate the reporting quality of published RCTs concerning the use of anticoagulants versus antiplatelet agents for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis according to the CONSORT statement. Electronic databases were searched for English-language RCTs involving patients who received either anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication for prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism published from 2000 to 2019. Trials were considered eligible when the included patients received either anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication for primary and secondary prevention of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism and were randomly assigned to at least two treatment arms. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 37-item questionnaire based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist. Reporting was assessed in 2 publication periods (2000-2009) and (2010-2019). The effect of CONSORT statement in high- and low-ranked medical journals, according to their impact factor, has also been evaluated. The search identified 13 eligible articles for analysis. Only 12 of the 37 items of the checklist were addressed in 75% or more of the studies. Most items concerning the methodological issues were reported by fewer than 50% of the studies. Improvements over time were seen for items that assessed the methodological quality with no statistically significant difference. RCTs published in high-ranked journals showed better quality of reporting. Quality of reporting in RCTs focusing on the use of anticoagulants versus antiplatelet agents for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis remains unsatisfactory. Further improvement of reporting is necessary to assess the validity of clinical research.
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.