Impact of the CONSORT Statement endorsement in the completeness of reporting of randomized clinical trials in restorative dentistry.

The aim of this study was to assess if journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement is associated with improved completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in restorative dentistry. RCTs in restorative dentistry published in two journals that have (Journal of Dentistry and Clinical Oral Investigations) and have not (Operative Dentistry and Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry) endorsed the CONSORT Statement were selected. We compared the completeness of reporting between comparison groups (endorsers versus non-endorsers, before versus after endorsement) using a risk ratio (RR) with a 99% confidence interval for each outcome of CONSORT 2010. Also, the risk of bias of each study was evaluated. The electronic search retrieved a total of 3701 records. After the title and abstract evaluation, 169 full texts were screened and 79 RCTs identified. Considering CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after CONSORT endorsement, six items had effect estimates indicating a relatively higher proportion of completely reported RCTs published after CONSORT endorsement. Considering CONSORT-endorsing journals compared to non-endorsing journals, twelve items indicated a relatively higher proportion of completely reported RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals. In both analyses the overall evidence did not present statistical significance. Although CONSORT endorsement has been linked with some improvement in the completeness of RCTs reports in the biomedical literature, this was not reflected in the present analysis confined to restorative dentistry. More innovative and involved approaches to enhancing reported may therefore be required. Inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials can produce important consequences for all stakeholders including waste of resources and implication on healthcare decisions. A broad understandment of the use of reporting guidelines is necessary to lead to better results.

Sarkis-Onofre R ，Poletto-Neto V ，Cenci MS ，Pereira-Cenci T ，Moher D ... -  《-》

Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.

Turner L ，Shamseer L ，Altman DG ，Weeks L ，Peters J ，Kober T ，Dias S ，Schulz KF ，Plint AC ，Moher D ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

CONSORT endorsement improves the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials in dentistry.

This study aimed to assess if the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) endorsement by journals is associated with improved completeness of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in dentistry. We searched for RCTs in dentistry indexed/published on PubMed in 2017. Study selection was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Data related to the general characteristics, reports of methodological characteristics, and whether the trial report was published in a journal that endorses the CONSORT Statement were extracted by two reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data surrounding the general and methodological characteristics of the included studies. We explored differences in the reporting of 12 methodological items between journals that endorsed CONSORT and those that did not. Five hundred and thirty three reports were included. The main area was implant dentistry with 101 articles (18.9%). Most studies had a parallel design (75.8%), performed at a single center (89.3%) and presenting two groups of comparison (75.6%). The median number of sample size was 50 (interquartile range: 31-90). Six of the 12 methodologic items were reported more often for RCTs published in journals that endorsed CONSORT than in journals that did not. CONSORT endorsement by journals is linked to improvement in the quality of RCT reports in dentistry.

Sarkis-Onofre R ，Poletto-Neto V ，Cenci MS ，Moher D ，Pereira-Cenci T ... -  《-》

Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review.

Turner L ，Shamseer L ，Altman DG ，Schulz KF ，Moher D ... -  《Systematic Reviews》

Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review.

To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines. Systematic review. Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name. English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals). Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score. 101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15,249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations. The completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence. Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.

Stevens A ，Shamseer L ，Weinstein E ，Yazdi F ，Turner L ，Thielman J ，Altman DG ，Hirst A ，Hoey J ，Palepu A ，Schulz KF ，Moher D ... -  《BMJ-British Medical Journal》