Quality of reporting randomised controlled trials in major dental journals suboptimal

Abstract

Hand searching of the most recent 24 issues of six high impact dental journals. RCTs involving only humans, from 24 issues of six leading specialty journals, covering a period up to July 2009 were included, including cluster randomised trials. Each article included in the study was assessed and scored independently by two observers, with any discrepancies being resolved by a third observer. In this study the modified CONSORT checklist was used to score each applicable item of data. The sum of the scores was converted to a percentage value for each trial. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Data regarding the publishing journal, country of origin of the trial, number of authors, involvement of statistician/epidemiologist, number of centres involved, ethics committee approval were subject to quantitative analysis. Ninety-five RCTs were identified with, according to the authors, generally suboptimal scores on quality reporting on key CONSORT areas. Significant differences in scores were found among the journals covering the named specialties. Overall there was a positive association between the quality score in studies with more authors, multicentre studies and studies in which a statistician/epidemiologist was involved. The overall quality of reporting RCTs in major dental journals was considered suboptimal in key CONSORT areas. This is very important as the reported results of RCTs can have an impact on future patient care.