ArticleBMJ open2022
Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedic clinical trials: a meta-research study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Pooled it
- The influence of structured physical activity on vaccination response from adults to older individuals: a systematic review on the Immunoinflammatory crosstalk of COVID-19.Immunity & ageing : I & A · 2025Review
- Sports Metaresearch: An Emerging Discipline of Sport Science and Medicine.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Review
- GPT for RCTs? Using AI to determine adherence to clinical trial reporting guidelines.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Assessing transparency practices in dental randomized controlled trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Checklists, risk of bias tools, and reporting guidelines for research in orthopedics, sports medicine, and rehabilitation.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Review
- A Pilot Study on the Reliability of Ultrasound-Based Assessment of Patella Diameter and Sulcus Angle.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Knee Orthotics Do Not Influence Coordinative Skills-A Randomized Controlled Crossover Pilot Trial.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Replacing bar graphs of continuous data with more informative graphics: are we making progress?Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2022Article
- Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedic clinical trials: a meta-research study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Is the future of peer review automated?BMC research notes · 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
objectivesTransparent reporting of clinical trials is essential to assess the risk of bias and translate research findings into clinical practice. While existing studies have shown that deficiencies are common, detailed empirical and field-specific data are scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to examine current clinical trial reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopaedics.
settingExploratory meta-research study on reporting quality and transparent research practices in orthopaedics and sports medicine clinical trials.
participantsThe sample included clinical trials published in the top 25% of sports medicine and orthopaedics journals over 9 months. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Two independent reviewers assessed pre-registration, open data and criteria related to scientific rigour, like randomisation, blinding, and sample size calculations, as well as the study sample, and data analysis.
resultsThe sample included 163 clinical trials from 27 journals. While the majority of trials mentioned rigour criteria, essential details were often missing. Sixty per cent (95% confidence interval (CI) 53% to 68%) of trials reported sample size calculations, but only 32% (95% CI 25% to 39%) justified the expected effect size. Few trials indicated the blinding status of all main stakeholders (4%; 95% CI 1% to 7%). Only 18% (95% CI 12% to 24%) included information on randomisation type, method and concealed allocation. Most trials reported participants' sex/gender (95%; 95% CI 92% to 98%) and information on inclusion and exclusion criteria (78%; 95% CI 72% to 84%). Only 20% (95% CI 14% to 26%) of trials were pre-registered. No trials deposited data in open repositories.
conclusionsThese results will aid the sports medicine and orthopaedics community in developing tailored interventions to improve reporting. While authors typically mention blinding, randomisation and other factors, essential details are often missing. Greater acceptance of open science practices, like pre-registration and open data, is needed. As these practices have been widely encouraged, we discuss systemic interventions that may improve clinical trial reporting.
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.