ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025
Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Elective Hand Surgery: A Systematic Review.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Nonpharmacologic Treatment guidelines aim to enhance the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by promoting transparency, reproducibility, and reduced bias. Compliance of RCTs with these checklist criteria ensures transparency and reproducibility. Poor methodological reporting undermines study reproducibility and reliability of clinical recommendations. This systematic review assessed the adherence of RCTs in elective hand surgery (EHS) to the latest guidelines. Methods: After PROSPERO registration (CRD42025630289), a search was conducted in January 2025 across Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for RCTs in EHS published since 2017. Two independent reviewers assessed studies against 42 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Nonpharmacologic Treatments subcriteria. Overall compliance to each subcriterion and overall compliance of each RCT were calculated. Results: Fifty-eight RCTs met inclusion criteria, with a mean compliance of 66.1%. The most consistently reported items were "scientific background and rationale" and "participant allocation details" (100% each). The least reported were "attempts to limit bias without blinding" (13.2%) and "modifications to outcomes post commencement" (17.2%). The "methods" section had the lowest section-wise compliance (55.7%). A weak but significant correlation was found between author count and compliance ( Conclusions: Reporting quality of RCTs in EHS remains moderate, with critical gaps in methodological transparency. Stronger collaboration among researchers, journals, funding agencies, and guideline developers is necessary to enhance adherence and ensure high-quality evidence.
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.