Reporting transparency and completeness in Trials: Paper 2 - reporting of randomised trials using registries was often inadequate and hindered the interpretation of results

dc.contributor.authorMc Cord, Kimberly Alba
dc.contributor.authorImran, Mahrukh
dc.contributor.authorRice, Danielle B.
dc.contributor.authorMcCall, Stephen J.
dc.contributor.authorKwakkenbos, Linda
dc.contributor.authorSampson, Margaret
dc.contributor.authorFrob̈ert, Ole
dc.contributor.authorGale, Chris
dc.contributor.authorLangan, Sinead M.
dc.contributor.authorMoher, David
dc.contributor.authorRelton, Clare
dc.contributor.authorZwarenstein, Merrick F.
dc.contributor.authorJuszczak, E.
dc.contributor.authorThombs, Brett D.
dc.contributor.authorHemkens, Lars G.
dc.contributor.departmentCenter for Research on Population and Health (CRPH)
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Health Sciences (FHS)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T12:17:14Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T12:17:14Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractObjective: Registries are important data sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but reporting of how they are used may be inadequate. The objective was to describe the current adequacy of reporting of RCTs using registries. Study Design and Setting: We used a database of trials using registries from a scoping review supporting the development of the 2021 CONSORT extension for Trials Conducted Using Cohorts and Routinely Collected Data (CONSORT-ROUTINE). Reporting completeness of 13 CONSORT-ROUTINE items was assessed. Results: We assessed reports of 47 RCTs that used a registry, published between 2011 and 2018. Of the 13 CONSORT-ROUTINE items, 6 were adequately reported in at least half of reports (2 in at least 80%). The 7 other items were related to routinely collected data source eligibility (32% adequate), data linkage (8% adequate), validation and completeness of data used for outcome assessment (8% adequate), validation and completeness of data used for participant recruitment (0% adequate), participant flow (9% adequate), registry funding (6% adequate) and interpretation of results in consideration of registry use (25% adequate). Conclusion: Reporting of trials using registries was often poor, particularly details on data linkage and quality. Better reporting is needed for appropriate interpretation of the results of these trials. © 2021 The Authors
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.09.012
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-85118728305
dc.identifier.pmid34525408
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/33713
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier Inc.
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectConsort
dc.subjectConsort-routine
dc.subjectRandomised controlled trials
dc.subjectRegistries
dc.subjectReporting guideline
dc.subjectRoutinely collected data
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectOutcome assessment, health care
dc.subjectPublications
dc.subjectResearch report
dc.subjectAdult
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectControlled study
dc.subjectEligibility
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectFunding
dc.subjectHuman
dc.subjectMajor clinical study
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectOutcome assessment
dc.subjectPractice guideline
dc.subjectRandomized controlled trial
dc.subjectPublication
dc.subjectRegister
dc.subjectResearch
dc.titleReporting transparency and completeness in Trials: Paper 2 - reporting of randomised trials using registries was often inadequate and hindered the interpretation of results
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2022-2102.pdf
Size:
548.61 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format