Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: The peer review process has been questioned as it may fail to allow the publication of high-quality articles. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting in RCT reports by early career researchers (ECRs) using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional diagnostic study of 119 manuscripts, from BMC series medical journals, BMJ, BMJ Open, and Annals of Emergency Medicine reporting the results of two-arm parallel-group RCTs. One hundred and nineteen ECRs who had never reviewed an RCT manuscript were recruited from December 2017 to January 2018. Each ECR assessed one manuscript. To assess accuracy in identifying inadequate reporting, we used two tests: (1) ECRs assessing a manuscript using the COBPeer tool (after completing an online training module) and (2) the usual peer-review process. The reference standard was the assessment of the manuscript by two systematic reviewers. Inadequate reporting was defined as incomplete reporting or a switch in primary outcome and considered nine domains: the eight most important CONSORT domains and a switch in primary outcome(s). The primary outcome was the mean number of domains accurately classified (scale from 0 to 9).Results: The mean (SD) number of domains (0 to 9) accurately classified per manuscript was 6.39 (1.49) for ECRs using COBPeer versus 5.03 (1.84) for the journal's usual peer-review process, with a mean difference [95% CI] of 1.36 [0.88-1.84] (p < 0.001). Concerning secondary outcomes, the sensitivity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual peer-review process in detecting incompletely reported CONSORT items was 86% [95% CI 82-89] versus 20% [16-24] and in identifying a switch in primary outcome 61% [44-77] versus 11% [3-26]. The specificity of ECRs using COBPeer versus the usual process to detect incompletely reported CONSORT domains was 61% [57-65] versus 77% [74-81] and to identify a switch in primary outcome 77% [67-86] versus 98% [92-100].Conclusions: Trained ECRs using the COBPeer tool were more likely to detect inadequate reporting in RCTs than the usual peer review processes used by journals. Implementing a two-step peer-review process could help improve the quality of reporting.

Abstract Background Comprehensive reporting of clinical trials is essential to allow the trial reader to evaluate the methodological rigor of the trial and interpret the results. Since publication of the updated Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for reporting of parallel clinical trials in humans, extensions for reporting of abstracts and crossover trials have been published. Objectives To describe the types of trials using dogs and cats published from 2015 to 2020 and to evaluate the quality of reporting of a sample of recently published parallel and crossover trials. Animals None. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted to identify parallel or crossover design clinical trials using dogs and cats published from January 1, 2015 onwards. Quality of reporting was evaluated on a subset of trials published during 2019. The reporting of items recommended in the CONSORT reporting guidelines for abstracts, parallel trials, and crossover trials was evaluated independently by 2 reviewers using standardized forms created for this study. Disagreements among reviewers were resolved by consensus. Results were tabulated descriptively. Results The frequency of reporting of trial features varied from low to high. There remain deficiencies in the quality of reporting of key methodological features and information needed to evaluate and interpret trial results. Conclusions and Clinical Importance There is still a need for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors to follow reporting guidelines such as CONSORT to maximize the value of clinical trials and to increase confidence in the validity of the trial results.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete reporting is a frequent waste in research. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of a writing aid tool (WAT) based on the CONSORT statement and its extension for non-pharmacologic treatments on the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We performed a 'split-manuscript' RCT with blinded outcome assessment. Participants were masters and doctoral students in public health. They were asked to write, over a 4-hour period, the methods section of a manuscript based on a real RCT protocol, with a different protocol provided to each participant. Methods sections were divided into six different domains: 'trial design', 'randomization', 'blinding', 'participants', 'interventions', and 'outcomes'. Participants had to draft all six domains with access to the WAT for a random three of six domains. The random sequence was computer-generated and concealed. For each domain, the WAT comprised reminders of the corresponding CONSORT item(s), bullet points detailing all the key elements to be reported, and examples of good reporting. The control intervention consisted of no reminders. The primary outcome was the mean global score for completeness of reporting (scale 0-10) for all domains written with or without the WAT. RESULTS: Forty-one participants wrote 41 different manuscripts of RCT methods sections, corresponding to 246 domains (six for each of the 41 protocols). All domains were analyzed. For the primary outcome, the mean (SD) global score for completeness of reporting was higher with than without use of the WAT: 7.1 (1.2) versus 5.0 (1.6), with a mean (95 % CI) difference 2.1 (1.5-2.7; P <0.01). Completeness of reporting was significantly higher with the WAT for all domains except for blinding and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Use of the WAT could improve the completeness of manuscripts reporting the results of RCTs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ( http://clinicaltrials.gov NCT02127567 , registration date first received April 29, 2014).

Background Research has shown that recruitment to trials is a process that stretches from identifying potentially eligible patients, through eligibility assessment, to obtaining informed consent. The length and complexity of this pathway means that many patients do not have the opportunity to consider participation. This article presents the development of a simple framework to document, understand and improve the process of trial recruitment. Methods Eight RCTs integrated a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) into the main trial, feasibility or pilot study. Part of the QRI required mapping the patient recruitment pathway using trial-specific screening and recruitment logs. A content analysis compared the logs to identify aspects of the recruitment pathway and process that were useful in monitoring and improving recruitment. Findings were synthesised to develop an optimised simple framework that can be used in a wide range of RCTs. Results The eight trials recorded basic information about patients screened for trial participation and randomisation outcome. Three trials systematically recorded reasons why an individual was not enrolled in the trial, and further details why they were not eligible or approached, or declined randomisation. A framework to facilitate clearer recording of the recruitment process and reasons for non-participation was developed: SEAR – Screening, to identify potentially eligible trial participants; Eligibility, assessed against the trial protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria; Approach, the provision of oral and written information and invitation to participate in the trial, and Randomised or not, with the outcome of randomisation or treatment received. Conclusions The SEAR framework encourages the collection of information to identify recruitment obstacles and facilitate improvements to the recruitment process. SEAR can be adapted to monitor recruitment to most RCTs, but is likely to add most value in trials where recruitment problems are anticipated or evident. Further work to test it more widely is recommended.

The objective of this study was to identify key features to be addressed in the reporting of deprescribing trials and to elaborate and explain CONSORT items in this regard. As a first step in a multistage process and based on a systematic review of deprescribing trials, we elaborated variation in design, intervention, and reporting of the included trials of the review. We identified items that were missed or insufficiently described, using the CONSORT and TIDieR checklists. The resulting list of items, which we considered relevant to be reported in deprescribing trials, were discussed in a single-round Delphi exercise and subsequently in a full-day face-to-face meeting with an international panel of 14 experts. We agreed on CONSORT items for further elaboration with regard to design and reporting of deprescribing trials. We identified seven CONSORT items on trial design, participants, intervention, outcomes, flowchart, and harms, where the investigators of deprescribing trials should take into consideration specific aspects, such as whether or not to use placebo or how to inform participants. This article presents an elaboration to the CONSORT statement for the reporting of deprescribing trials. It may also support investigators in motivated design choices.

To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials on acupuncture for the treatment of stable angina pectoris. A systematic search was conducted in both Chinese and English databases, including CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, SinoMed, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, with a focus on studies published from the inception of each database to March 4, 2025. This search aimed to identify clinical RCTs exploring the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating stable angina pectoris. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the (Consolidated Statement for Trials) CONSORT statement and the (Standards for Reporting Interventions in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture) STRICTA guidelines. The CONSORT statement, an internationally recognized standard for trial reporting, was employed to evaluate the reporting quality of intervention measures in acupuncture trials, while the STRICTA guidelines were applied to assess acupuncture-specific reporting quality. A total of 31 studies were included in the analysis. The results from the CONSORT evaluation indicated that 19 items had a reporting rate of less than 10%, predominantly related to trial methods and results, while 4 items showed a reporting rate greater than 90%, mainly focusing on abstract descriptions, inclusion criteria, and subject recruitment. According to the STRICTA guidelines, the primary factors influencing the quality of acupuncture-related reports included the rationale for acupuncture treatment, the treatment setting, the description of acupuncturists, and the rationale for selecting control groups or control measures. The reporting rates for these factors were 32.26%, 3.23%, 6.45%, and 25.81%, respectively. In the final randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture and moxibustion for stable angina pectoris (SAP), 31 items met the inclusion criteria. The overall reporting quality of these RCTs was suboptimal. Notably, 77.42% of studies failed to report essential intervention details, while a substantial proportion lacked definitions of primary outcomes or adequate descriptions of randomization and blinding procedures. These widespread reporting deficiencies reflect poor adherence to CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines, thereby compromising the transparency, methodological rigor, and interpretability of the current evidence base. The overall reporting quality of literature on acupuncture for stable angina pectoris needs improvement. Future RCTs should strictly follow CONSORT and STRICTA to enhance research reliability and transparency.

Many breast cancer survivors have to deal with a variety of psychological and physiological sequelae including impaired immune responses. The primary purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine the efficacy of a mindfulness‐based stress reduction (MBSR) intervention for mood disorders in women with breast cancer. Secondary outcomes were symptom experience, health status, coping capacity, mindfulness, posttraumatic growth, and immune status. This RTC assigned 166 women with breast cancer to one of three groups: MBSR (8 weekly group sessions of MBSR), active controls (self‐instructing MBSR) and non‐MBSR. The primary outcome measure was the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Secondary outcome measures were: Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, SF‐36, Sense of Coherence, Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire, and Posttraumatic Growth Index. Blood samples were analyzed using flow cytometry for NK‐cell activity (FANKIA) and lymphocyte phenotyping; concentrations of cytokines were determined in sera using commercial high sensitivity IL‐6 and IL‐8 ELISA (enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay) kits. Results provide evidence for beneficial effects of MBSR on psychological and biological responses. Women in the MBSR group experienced significant improvements in depression scores, with a mean pre‐MBSR HAD‐score of 4.3 and post‐MBSR score of 3.3 (P = 0.001), and compared to non‐MBSR (P = 0.015). Significant improvements on scores for distress, symptom burden, and mental health were also observed. Furthermore, MBSR facilitated coping capacity as well as mindfulness and posttraumatic growth. Significant benefits in immune response within the MBSR group and between groups were observed. MBSR have potential for alleviating depression, symptom experience, and for enhancing coping capacity, mindfulness and posttraumatic growth, which may improve breast cancer survivorship. MBSR also led to beneficial effect on immune function; the clinical implications of this finding merit further research. MBSR alleviates depression and symptom experience and enhance coping capacity which may improve breast cancer survivorship. MBSR also led to changes in immune response.

To assess the quality of reporting and accuracy of a priori estimates used in sample size calculations for cluster randomized trials (CRTs). We reviewed 300 CRTs published between 2000 and 2008. The prevalence of reporting sample size elements from the 2004 CONSORT recommendations was evaluated and a priori estimates compared with those observed in the trial. Of the 300 trials, 166 (55%) reported a sample size calculation. Only 36 of 166 (22%) reported all recommended descriptive elements. Elements specific to CRTs were the worst reported: a measure of within-cluster correlation was specified in only 58 of 166 (35%). Only 18 of 166 articles (11%) reported both a priori and observed within-cluster correlation values. Except in two cases, observed within-cluster correlation values were either close to or less than a priori values. Even with the CONSORT extension for cluster randomization, the reporting of sample size elements specific to these trials remains below that necessary for transparent reporting. Journal editors and peer reviewers should implement stricter requirements for authors to follow CONSORT recommendations. Authors should report observed and a priori within-cluster correlation values to enable comparisons between these over a wider range of trials.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is currently one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Our aim was to evaluate transparency and selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC. Methods: First, we assessed indicators of transparency with completeness of reporting, according to the CONSORT statement, and data sharing. We evaluated a selection of reporting items for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying CRC with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Selected items were issued from the previously published CONSORT based peer-review tool (COBPeer tool). Then, we evaluated selective reporting through retrospective registration and primary outcome(s) switching between registration and publication. Finally, we determined if primary outcome(s) switching favored significant outcomes. Results: We evaluated 101 RCTs with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Five trials (5%) reported all selected CONSORT items completely. Seventy-four (73%), 53 (52%) and 13 (13%) trials reported the primary outcome(s), the allocation concealment process and harms completely. Twenty-five (25%) trials were willing to share data. In our sample, 49 (49%) trials were retrospectively registered and 23 (23%) trials had primary outcome(s) switching. The influence of primary outcome(s) switching could be evaluated in 16 (16/23 = 70%) trials, with 6 (6/16 = 38%) trials showing a discrepancy that favored statistically significant results. Conclusions: Our results highlight a lack of transparency as well as frequent selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.

Background: This study aimed to assess the overall reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) formulas for patients with diabetes, and to identify factors associated with better reporting quality. Methods: Four databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically searched from their inception to December 2022. The reporting quality was assessed based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and its CHM formula extension. The overall CONSORT and its CHM formula extension scores were calculated and expressed as proportions separately. We also analyzed the pre-specified study characteristics and performed exploratory regressions to determine their associations with the reporting quality. Results: Seventy-two RCTs were included. Overall reporting quality (mean adherence) were 53.56% and 45.71% on the CONSORT statement and its CHM formula extension, respectively. The strongest associations with reporting quality based on the CONSORT statement were multiple centers and larger author numbers. Compliance with the CHM formula extension, particularly regarding the disclosure of the targeted traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) pattern (s), was generally insufficient. Conclusion: The reporting quality of RCTs in CHM formulas for diabetes remains unsatisfactory, and the adherence to the CHM formula extension is even poorer. In order to ensure transparent and standardized reporting of RCTs, it is essential to advocate for or even mandate adherence of the CONSORT statement and its CHM formula extension when reporting trials in CHM formulas for diabetes by both authors and editors.