ArticlePloS one2023
Poor reporting quality of randomized controlled trials comparing treatments of COVID-19-A retrospective cross-sectional study on the first year of publications.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of methodology, reporting and transparency of 50 highly cited randomised trials in neurology: a cross-sectional analysis.BMJ open · 2026Article
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
- Article
- Post-publication peer review and the identification of methodological and reporting issues in COVID-19 trials: a qualitative study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Completeness and changes in data reporting pharmacological interventions to treat COVID-19.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTransparent and complete reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is essential for critical scientific appraisal of the results. It has been argued whether publications during the COVID-19 pandemic have met reporting standards. In this study, we assessed reporting adherence of RCTs on treatment interventions in COVID-19 patients to the CONSORT checklist and discuss which lessons can be learned to improve reporting in the future.
methodsThis was a retrospective, cross-sectional study performed at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany. We conducted a pragmatic systematic literature search in the PubMed database to identify RCTs on treatment interventions in COVID-19 patients in the first year of publications on the topic (March 2020-February 2021). We investigated the adherence of each publication to the CONSORT checklist and assessed the association between specific predictors and percentage adherence in an exploratory multivariable regression model.
resultsWe analyzed 127 RCTs and found that the median percentage adherence to the CONSORT checklist was 54.3% [IQR 38.9 to 65.7]. In the exploratory multivariable regression model, the impact factor (highest tertile of impact factor compared to lowest tertile ß = 21.77, 95% CI 13.89 to 29.66, p<0.001; middle tertile compared lowest tertile ß = 11.79, 95% CI 5.74 to 17.84, p<0.001)) and authors' referral to the CONSORT statement (ß = 9.29, 95% CI 2.98 to 15.60, p = 0.004) were associated with a higher percentage adherence to the CONSORT checklist.
conclusionThe reporting quality of RCTs on treatment interventions in COVID-19 patients during the first year of publications was poor. Measures to improve reporting quality are urgently needed.
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.