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.