Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34162718›Full record

SynthesisOccupational and environmental medicine2021

Quality of reporting and risk of bias: a review of randomised trials in occupational health.

Christina Tikka, Jos Verbeek, Sharea Ijaz, Jan L Hoving, Julitta Boschman, Carel Hulshof, Angela G de Boer

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Randomized controlled trials in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and critical appraisal.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Christina TikkaDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands c.mischke@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-2078-8715
Jos VerbeekDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Cochrane Work Review Group, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sharea IjazNIHR ARC West, University of Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Jan L HovingDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Cochrane Work Review Group, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Julitta BoschmanDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Cochrane Work Review Group, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Carel HulshofDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Angela G de BoerDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the reporting quality of randomisation and allocation methods in occupational health and safety (OHS) trials in relation to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) requirements of journals, risk of bias (RoB) and publication year.

methodsWe systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed between 2010 and May 2019 in 18 OHS journals. We measured reporting quality as percentage compliance with the CONSORT 2010 checklist (items 8-10) and RoB with the ROB V.2.0 tool (first domain). We tested the mean difference (MD) in % in reporting quality between CONSORT-requiring and non-requiring journals, trials with low, some concern and high RoB and publications before and after 2015.

resultsIn 135 articles reporting on 129 RCTs, average reporting quality was at 37.4% compliance (95% CI 31.9% to 43.0%), with 10% of articles reaching 100% compliance. Reporting quality was significantly better in CONSORT-requiring journals than non-requiring journals (MD 31.0% (95% CI 21.4% to 40.7%)), for studies at low RoB than high RoB (MD 33.1% (95% CI 16.1% to 50.2%)) and with RoB of some concern (MD 39.8% (95% CI 30.0% to 49.7%)). Reporting quality did not improve over time (MD -5.7% (95% CI -16.8% to 5.4%).

conclusionsArticles in CONSORT-requiring journals and of low RoB studies show better reporting quality. Low reporting quality is linked to unclear RoB judgements (some concern). Reporting quality did not improve over the last 10 years and CONSORT is insufficiently implemented. Concerted efforts by editors and authors are needed to improve CONSORT implementation.

Indexed as

Selection BiasBiasHumansOccupational HealthRandom AllocationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk Factorsclinical trialoccupational healthpublic health

Identifiers

PMID34162718
PMCPMC8380877

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.