Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42038457›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2026

Clinical trial registration and CONSORT adherence in obstetrics and gynecology journals: a cross-sectional analysis of Chinese- and English-language publications.

Min Sun, Yongqing Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Min SunChinese Journal of Reproduction and Contraception, Shanghai Institute for Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Technologies, Shanghai, China.
Yongqing ZhuReproductive and Developmental Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Clinical trial registration and adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement are essential for improving transparency, reducing reporting bias, and enhancing the interpretability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the extent to which these practices are endorsed by journals and implemented in published trials varies across disciplines and publication contexts. This study aimed to evaluate journal policies regarding clinical trial registration and adherence to the CONSORT statement, and to assess registration and reporting practices among RCTs published in Chinese- and English-language medical journals in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of obstetrics and gynecology journals publishing RCTs between 2019 and 2024. Journal instructions for authors were reviewed to determine requirements for clinical trial registration and CONSORT adherence. Published RCTs were assessed for trial registration status and the inclusion of a CONSORT flowchart. Journal characteristics, including membership in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and endorsement of CONSORT, as well as funding support, were extracted. Categorical variables were summarized as frequencies and percentages, and group comparisons were performed using Chi-square tests. Results: A total of 59 journals (51 English-language and eight Chinese-language) and 1,234 RCTs were included. Among the English-language journals surveyed, 70.6% (36/51) required clinical trial registration and 49.0% (25/51) mandated adherence to the CONSORT statement, compared with 12.5% (1/8) of Chinese-language journals requiring either practice in their journal policies and instructions for authors. Overall, 84.1% (1,038/1,234) of RCTs were registered and 83.5% (1,030/1,234) reported a CONSORT flowchart. Registration and reporting practices were more frequently observed in journals with explicit registration requirements, CONSORT endorsement, ICMJE membership, and funding support. Conclusion: In this sample of obstetrics and gynecology journals, substantial differences were observed in journal policies and in the implementation of clinical trial registration and CONSORT-related reporting practices between Chinese- and English-language publications. These findings highlight the association between journal policies and reporting transparency, while underscoring the need for continued efforts to strengthen trial registration and reporting standards within the field.

Indexed as

Editorial PoliciesGuideline AdherenceGynecologyObstetricsPeriodicals as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesHumansLanguageClinical trial registrationCONSORT statementInstructions for authorsJournal policyMedical journalRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID42038457
PMCPMC13108464

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.