First author, year | Levels of inconsistent reporting between protocols or registrations and full reports | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participant eligibility criteria | Sample size | Randomization | Interventions and their delivery | Blinding | Outcome measure | Study duration | Statistical analysis choice (e.g., model selection, model adjustment, missing data handling, intention-to-treat, et al) | Subgroup analysis | Funding source | Othersb | |
Al-Marzouki, 2008 [17] | – | – | – | – | – | 30% | – | – | 36% | – | – |
Chan, 2004 (from CMAJ) [19] | – | – | – | – | – | 40% | – | – | – | – | – |
Chan, 2004 (from JAMA) [7] | – | – | – | – | – | 62% | – | – | – | – | – |
Boonacker, 2011 [18] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 75% | – | – |
Chan, 2008 [3] | – | 53% | – | – | – | 60% | – | Handling missing data: 80% Interim analyses: 62% Model adjustments: 82% | 100% | – |  |
Dekkers, 2015 [11] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | Noninferiority margin definitions reported: 9% Noninferiority margins and confidence intervals reported: 28% | – | – | – |
Hahn, 2002 [20] | – | – | – | – | – | 33% | – | Analysis plans reported: 88% | – | – | – |
Hannink, 2013 [21] | – | – | – | – | – | 49% | – | – | – | – | – |
Hartung, 2014 [22] | – | – | – | – | – | 15% | – | – | – | – |  |
Hernandez, 2005 [23] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 100% | – | – |
Kasenda, 2014 [9] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 38% | – | – |
Killlen, 2014 | – | – | – | – | – | 29% | – | – | – | – | – |
Korevaar, 2014 [25] | 12% | – | – | – | – | 21% | – |  | – | – | Result presentations: 6% |
Li, 2013 [26] | – | – | – | – | – | 14% | – | – | – | – | – |
Mathieu, 2009 [27] | – | – | – | – | – | 31% | – | – | – | – | – |
Maund, 2014 [28] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | Primary efficacy analyses reported: 14% | – | – | Adverse events reported: 100% |
Melander, 2003 [29] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | Intention-to-treat or per-protocol analyses reported: 93% | – | – | – |
Mhaskar, 2012 [30] | – | 59% | 77% | 72% | 53% | – | – | Intention-to-treat analyses reported: 70% | – | – |  |
Milette, 2011 [31] | – | – | – | – | – | 100% | – | – | – | – | – |
Nankervis, 2012 [32] | – | – | – | – | – | 72% | – | – |  | – | – |
Norris, 2014 [33] | – | – | – | – | – | 83% | – | – | 20% | – | Adverse events reported; 43% |
Redmond, 2013 [34] | – | – | – | – | – | 29% (primary outcomes: 17%; secondary outcomes: 33%) | – | – | – | – | – |
Riehm, 2015 [35] | – | – | – | – | – | 33% | – | – | – | – | – |
Rising, 2008 [36] | – | – | – | – | – | 31% | – | – | – | – | Conclusions reported: 9% |
Riveros, 2013 [37] | – | – | – | – | – | 87% | – | – | – | – | Adverse events reported: 37% |
Rongen, 2016 [38] | – | – | – | – | – | 54% |  | – | – | – | – |
Rosati, 2016 [39] | 45% | 40% | – | – | – | 100% | Studies discontinued early without justifications:65% | Intention-to-treat analysis: 10% | – | 45% |  |
Rosenthal, 2013 [40] | – | 27% | 2% | – | 23% | Primary outcomes: 45% Secondary outcomes: 67% | Start of patient enrolment reported: 43% End of enrollment reported: 71% | – | – | 45% | Ethical committee approval: 2% |
Saquib, 2013 [41] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | Analysis plans reported: 47% | – | – | – |
Smith, 2013 [42] | – | – | – | – | – | 79% | – | – | – | – | – |
Soares, 2004 [48] | – | 60% | – | 59% | – | – | – | Intention-to-treat analysis: 14% | – | – | Dropouts reported: 9% |
Su, 2015 [43] | – | – | – | – | – | 45% | – | – | – | – | – |
Turner, 2012 [44] | – | – | – | – | – | 25%- | – | – | – | – | Effect sizes reported: 8% |
Vedula, 2009 [45] | – | – | – | – | – | 67% | – | – | – | – | – |
Vedula, 2013 [10] | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | Intention-to-treat analysis definitions: 67% Safety analysis definitions: 50% | – | – | – |
Vera-Badillo 2013 [46] | – | – | – | – | – | 23% | – | – | – | – | – |
You, 2012 [47] | – | – | – | – | – | 14% | – | – | – | – | – |