ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2021
Toward assessing clinical trial publications for reporting transparency.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Large Language Model Analysis of Reporting Quality of Randomized Clinical Trial Articles: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review.F1000Research · 2021Pooled it
- Methodological information extraction from randomized controlled trial publications: a pilot study.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022Trial
- SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM: Element-Level Annotated Dataset and Large Language Model Approach for Assessing Randomized Controlled Trial Reporting.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Use as directed? A comparison of software tools intended to check rigor and transparency of published work.PloS one · 2026Article
- SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM: a corpus for assessing transparency of clinical trial protocol and results publications.Scientific data · 2025Article
- The Maastricht Intensive Care COVID Cohort: A Critical Appraisal of the Predefined Research Questions.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM: a corpus for assessing transparency of clinical trial protocol and results publications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Unravelling the Silence: Exploring Tinnitus Pathophysiology and the Promise of Traditional Chinese Medicine.International journal of general medicine · 2025Review
- The Impact of Temperature on Extracting Information From Clinical Trial Publications Using Large Language Models.Cureus · 2024Article
- Predicting the sample size of randomized controlled trials using natural language processing.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- Text classification models for assessing the completeness of randomized controlled trial publications based on CONSORT reporting guidelines.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- CONSORT-TM: Text classification models for assessing the completeness of randomized controlled trial publications.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Retrieval augmented scientific claim verification.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- Automatic categorization of self-acknowledged limitations in randomized controlled trial publications.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2024Article
- Methodology reporting improved over time in 176,469 randomized controlled trials.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Article
- Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedic clinical trials: a meta-research study.BMJ open · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo annotate a corpus of randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications with the checklist items of CONSORT reporting guidelines and using the corpus to develop text mining methods for RCT appraisal.
methodsWe annotated a corpus of 50 RCT articles at the sentence level using 37 fine-grained CONSORT checklist items. A subset (31 articles) was double-annotated and adjudicated, while 19 were annotated by a single annotator and reconciled by another. We calculated inter-annotator agreement at the article and section level using MASI (Measuring Agreement on Set-Valued Items) and at the CONSORT item level using Krippendorff's α. We experimented with two rule-based methods (phrase-based and section header-based) and two supervised learning approaches (support vector machine and BioBERT-based neural network classifiers), for recognizing 17 methodology-related items in the RCT Methods sections.
resultsWe created CONSORT-TM consisting of 10,709 sentences, 4,845 (45%) of which were annotated with 5,246 labels. A median of 28 CONSORT items (out of possible 37) were annotated per article. Agreement was moderate at the article and section levels (average MASI: 0.60 and 0.64, respectively). Agreement varied considerably among individual checklist items (Krippendorff's α= 0.06-0.96). The model based on BioBERT performed best overall for recognizing methodology-related items (micro-precision: 0.82, micro-recall: 0.63, micro-F1: 0.71). Combining models using majority vote and label aggregation further improved precision and recall, respectively.
conclusionOur annotated corpus, CONSORT-TM, contains more fine-grained information than earlier RCT corpora. Low frequency of some CONSORT items made it difficult to train effective text mining models to recognize them. For the items commonly reported, CONSORT-TM can serve as a testbed for text mining methods that assess RCT transparency, rigor, and reliability, and support methods for peer review and authoring assistance. Minor modifications to the annotation scheme and a larger corpus could facilitate improved text mining models. CONSORT-TM is publicly available at https://github.com/kilicogluh/CONSORT-TM.
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.