Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Using the CONSORT statement to evaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised trials: a cross-sectional review
  1. Matthew Vassar,
  2. Sam Jellison,
  3. Hannah Wendelbo,
  4. Cole Wayant,
  5. Harrison Gray,
  6. Michael Bibens
  1. Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cole Wayant; cole.wayant{at}okstate.edu

Abstract

Objectives Evaluate the completeness of reporting of addiction randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.

Setting Not applicable.

Participants RCTs identified using a PubMed search of 15 addiction journals and a 5-year cross-section.

Outcome measures Completeness of reporting.

Results Our analysis of 394 addiction RCTs found that the mean number of CONSORT items reported was 19.2 (SD 5.2), out of a possible 31. Twelve items were reported in <50% of RCTs; similarly, 12 items were reported in >75% of RCTs. Journal endorsement of CONSORT was found to improve the number of CONSORT items reported.

Conclusions Poor reporting quality may prohibit readers from critically appraising the methodological quality of addiction trials. We recommend journal endorsement of CONSORT since our study and those previous have shown that CONSORT endorsement improves the quality of reporting.

  • clinical trials
  • reporting quality
  • CONSORT
  • addiction

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors MV and MB conceptualised and designed the project. SJ, HW and HG participated in data extraction and analysis. CW conducted all statistical analyses. All authors participated in writing the manuscript and give final approval.

  • Funding The research results discussed in this publication were made possible in total or in part by funding through the award for project number HR18-119, from the Oklahoma Center for the Advancement of Science and Technology.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available on reasonable request.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.