ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM: a corpus for assessing transparency of clinical trial protocol and results publications.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can produce valid estimates of the benefits and harms of therapeutic interventions. However, incomplete reporting can undermine the validity of their conclusions. Reporting guidelines, such as SPIRIT for protocols and CONSORT for results, have been developed to improve transparency in RCT publications. In this study, we report a corpus of 200 RCT publications, named SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM, annotated for transparency. We used a comprehensive data model that includes 83 items from SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists for annotation. Inter-annotator agreement was calculated for 30 pairs. The dataset includes 26,613 sentences annotated with checklist items and 4,231 terms. We also trained natural language processing (NLP) models that automatically identify these items in publications. The sentence classification model achieved 0.742 micro-F1 score (0.865 at the article level). The term extraction model yielded 0.545 and 0.663 micro-F1 score in strict and lenient evaluation, respectively. The corpus serves as a benchmark to train models that assist stakeholders of clinical research in maintaining high reporting standards and synthesizing information on study rigor and conduct.
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.