Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Reporting quality of key methodological items

From: Methodological reporting of randomized controlled trials in major hepato-gastroenterology journals in 2008 and 1998: a comparative study

Items 2008(n = 107) 1998(n = 99) 2008 VS 1998
  n(%) n(%) RR [95%CI] Pvalue
Sequence generation     
adequate reporting 23(22%) 10(10%) 2.44[1.09,5.42] < 0.05
partial reporting 58(54%) 25(25%)   < 0.05
no reporting 26(24%) 64(75%)   < 0.05
*adequate + partial reporting 81(76%) 35(35%) 5.70[3.11,10.42] < 0.05
Allocation concealment     
adequate reporting 6(6%) 3(3%) 1.90[0.46,7.82] 0.89
partial reporting 56(52%) 22(22%)   < 0.05
no reporting 45(42%) 74(75%)   < 0.05
*adequate + partial reporting 62(58%) 25(25%) 4.08 [2.25, 7.39] < 0.05
Blinding     
adequate reporting 24(22%) 22(22%) 1.01[0.52,1.95] 0.97
partial reporting 38(36%) 30(30%)   0.43
no reporting 45(42%) 47(47%)   0.43
*adequate + partial reporting 62(58%) 52(53%) 1.25 [0.72, 2.16] 0.43
Sample size calculation     
adequate reporting 28(26%) 13(13%) 2.34[1.14,4.84] < 0.05
partial reporting 55(52%) 34(34%)   < 0.05
no reporting 24(22%) 52(53%)   < 0.05
*adequate + partial reporting 83(78%) 47(47%) 3.83 [2.10, 6.98] < 0.05
Incomplete outecome data addressed     
adequate reporting 20(19%) 12(12%) 1.67[0.77,3.62] 0.2
partial reporting 32(30%) 22(22%)   0.21
no reporting 55(51%) 65(66%)   < 0.05
*adequate + partial reporting 52(49%) 34(34%) 1.81[1.03,3.17] < 0.05
Intention-to-treat analysis     
adequate reporting 49(46%) 30(30%) 1.94[1.10,3.45] < 0.05
partial reporting 25(23%) 12(12%)   < 0.05
no reporting 33(31%) 57(58%)   < 0.05
*adequate + partial reporting 74(69%) 42(42%) 3.04 [1.72, 5.39] < 0.05
Free of selective reporting     
adequate reporting 34(32%) 20(20%) 1.84[0.97,3.48] 0.06
partial reporting 23(21%) 23(23%)   0.76
no reporting 50(47%) 56(57%)   0.16
*adequate + partial reporting 57(53%) 43(43%) 1.48[0.86,2.57] 0.16