An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently

Edward Mills, Ping Wu, Joel Gagnier, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Victor Manuel Montori

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

60 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: We aimed to determine if specialist journals implement specific Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations to the same extent as general medical journals. Methods: Analysis of random controlled trials (RCTs) in five general medical journals (n = 100) and 10 specialist journals (n = 100), all endorsing CONSORT. We evaluated the likelihood of reporting important methodologic criteria. Analyses controlled for the nested effect of journal within each journal type. Results: General medical journals published, on average, more CONSORT items per RCT than specialist journals (7.9 [SD 1.8] vs. 6.5 [SD 2.2] out of 11 possible items, P =. 02). When compared with specialist journals, RCTs in general medical journals published a participant flow diagram more frequently (83 vs. 42%, odds ratio [OR] 6.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4-12.9) and more likely to report the method of randomization (78 vs. 55%, OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5-5.3) and allocation concealment (48 vs. 26%, OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.4-4.7); they were less likely to publish RCTs reporting adverse events (58 vs. 78%, OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.7). Both page length and impact factor were weakly associated with number of CONSORT items reported. Conclusion: General medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT do not enforce reporting issues consistently, with specialty journals lagging behind general medical journals.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)662-667
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume58
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2005

Fingerprint

Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
Random Allocation

Keywords

  • CONSORT
  • General medical journals
  • Reporting
  • Specialist journals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Epidemiology

Cite this

An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently. / Mills, Edward; Wu, Ping; Gagnier, Joel; Heels-Ansdell, Diane; Montori, Victor Manuel.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 58, No. 7, 07.2005, p. 662-667.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e8cc2fab0d634f3f8304976764595a71,
title = "An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently",
abstract = "Background: We aimed to determine if specialist journals implement specific Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations to the same extent as general medical journals. Methods: Analysis of random controlled trials (RCTs) in five general medical journals (n = 100) and 10 specialist journals (n = 100), all endorsing CONSORT. We evaluated the likelihood of reporting important methodologic criteria. Analyses controlled for the nested effect of journal within each journal type. Results: General medical journals published, on average, more CONSORT items per RCT than specialist journals (7.9 [SD 1.8] vs. 6.5 [SD 2.2] out of 11 possible items, P =. 02). When compared with specialist journals, RCTs in general medical journals published a participant flow diagram more frequently (83 vs. 42{\%}, odds ratio [OR] 6.7, 95{\%} confidence interval [CI] 3.4-12.9) and more likely to report the method of randomization (78 vs. 55{\%}, OR 2.9, 95{\%} CI 1.5-5.3) and allocation concealment (48 vs. 26{\%}, OR 2.6, 95{\%} CI 1.4-4.7); they were less likely to publish RCTs reporting adverse events (58 vs. 78{\%}, OR 0.3, 95{\%} CI 0.2-0.7). Both page length and impact factor were weakly associated with number of CONSORT items reported. Conclusion: General medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT do not enforce reporting issues consistently, with specialty journals lagging behind general medical journals.",
keywords = "CONSORT, General medical journals, Reporting, Specialist journals",
author = "Edward Mills and Ping Wu and Joel Gagnier and Diane Heels-Ansdell and Montori, {Victor Manuel}",
year = "2005",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "58",
pages = "662--667",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently

AU - Mills, Edward

AU - Wu, Ping

AU - Gagnier, Joel

AU - Heels-Ansdell, Diane

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

PY - 2005/7

Y1 - 2005/7

N2 - Background: We aimed to determine if specialist journals implement specific Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations to the same extent as general medical journals. Methods: Analysis of random controlled trials (RCTs) in five general medical journals (n = 100) and 10 specialist journals (n = 100), all endorsing CONSORT. We evaluated the likelihood of reporting important methodologic criteria. Analyses controlled for the nested effect of journal within each journal type. Results: General medical journals published, on average, more CONSORT items per RCT than specialist journals (7.9 [SD 1.8] vs. 6.5 [SD 2.2] out of 11 possible items, P =. 02). When compared with specialist journals, RCTs in general medical journals published a participant flow diagram more frequently (83 vs. 42%, odds ratio [OR] 6.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4-12.9) and more likely to report the method of randomization (78 vs. 55%, OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5-5.3) and allocation concealment (48 vs. 26%, OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.4-4.7); they were less likely to publish RCTs reporting adverse events (58 vs. 78%, OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.7). Both page length and impact factor were weakly associated with number of CONSORT items reported. Conclusion: General medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT do not enforce reporting issues consistently, with specialty journals lagging behind general medical journals.

AB - Background: We aimed to determine if specialist journals implement specific Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations to the same extent as general medical journals. Methods: Analysis of random controlled trials (RCTs) in five general medical journals (n = 100) and 10 specialist journals (n = 100), all endorsing CONSORT. We evaluated the likelihood of reporting important methodologic criteria. Analyses controlled for the nested effect of journal within each journal type. Results: General medical journals published, on average, more CONSORT items per RCT than specialist journals (7.9 [SD 1.8] vs. 6.5 [SD 2.2] out of 11 possible items, P =. 02). When compared with specialist journals, RCTs in general medical journals published a participant flow diagram more frequently (83 vs. 42%, odds ratio [OR] 6.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4-12.9) and more likely to report the method of randomization (78 vs. 55%, OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5-5.3) and allocation concealment (48 vs. 26%, OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.4-4.7); they were less likely to publish RCTs reporting adverse events (58 vs. 78%, OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.7). Both page length and impact factor were weakly associated with number of CONSORT items reported. Conclusion: General medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT do not enforce reporting issues consistently, with specialty journals lagging behind general medical journals.

KW - CONSORT

KW - General medical journals

KW - Reporting

KW - Specialist journals

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=20444394060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=20444394060&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.01.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 15939216

AN - SCOPUS:20444394060

VL - 58

SP - 662

EP - 667

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 7

ER -