Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in the

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate the reporting completeness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the Methods: A systematic search of the JKBNS archive was conducted using keywords related to random allocation. A total of 22 RCTs were identified and included in this methodological review. Eligible studies were defined as RCTs involving human participants. Reporting completeness was assessed using the CONSORT 2025 checklist. In addition, a conceptual mapping analysis was performed to examine the alignment between CONSORT 2025 checklist items and methodological quality domains derived from the Risk of Bias 2.0 (RoB 2.0), the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools. Results: Of the 22 reviewed RCTs, 19 used a parallel-group design and 3 employed a crossover design. Most studies evaluated non-pharmacological interventions, most commonly aromatherapy. The mean CONSORT 2025 compliance score was 24.77 ± 3.15, with 18 items consistently reported across studies. However, critical elements such as protocol amendments, interim analyses, and approaches to handling missing data were rarely addressed. Evaluation of 42 detailed items corresponding to 30 checklist numbers showed an overall average reporting rate of 59.0%. Fourteen CONSORT 2025 checklist items demonstrated conceptual alignment with domains from RoB 2.0, SIGN, and JBI. Conclusion: The overall reporting quality of RCTs published in JKBNS was moderate. Future RCT submissions to nursing journals should emphasize rigorous and comprehensive adherence to reporting standards such as the CONSORT 2025 checklist to improve methodological transparency and reproducibility.