Skip to main content

Table 3 Associations between the reporting of a flow diagram versus non-reporting of flow diagrams and journal and RCT characteristics

From: Reporting of flow diagrams in randomised controlled trials published in periodontology and implantology: a survey

Characteristics

N = 317 Flow diagram reported (%)

N = 227 Flow diagram not reported (%)

P value

Periodontology

125 (73.1)

46 (26.9)

 < 0.001

Implantology

192 (51.5)

181 (48.5)

 

Parallel

267 (60.1)

177 (39.9)

0.12

Split-mouth

42 (48.3)

45 (51.7)

 

Other

8 (61.5)

5 (38.5)

 

Surgical

229 (53.1)

202 (46.9)

 < 0.001

Non surgical

88 (77.9)

25 (22.1)

 

Single-centre

272 (58.6)

192 (41.4)

0.69

Multi-centre

45 (56.3)

35 (43.8)

 

CONSORT endorsed

225 (71.4)

90 (28.6)

 < 0.001

Non endorsed

92 (40.2)

137 (59.8)

 

Non-profit

122 (70.1)

52 (29.9)

 < 0.001

Profit

128 (57.9)

93 (42.1)

 

No sponsor

24 (53.3)

21 (46.7)

 

Unclear funding

43 (41.3)

61 (58.7)

 

Conflict of interest reported

305 (59.1)

211 (40.9)

0.09

Not reported

12 (42.9)

16 (57.1)

 

Statistical significant results

255 (59.0)

177 (41.0)

0.48

Non significant results

62 (55.4)

50 (44.6)

 

Trial registered

217 (68.7)

99 (31.3)

 < 0.001

Not registered

100 (43.9)

128 (56.1)

 

Statistician involved

71 (61.7)

44 (38.3)

0.40

Not involved

246 (57.3)

183 (42.7)

 

Africa

9 (33.3)

18 (66.7)

 < 0.001

Asia & Australia

94 (68.1)

44 (31.9)

 

Europe

136 (53.3)

119 (46.7)

 

North America

33 (49.3)

34 (50.7)

 

South America

45 (78.9)

12 (21.1)

 

Ethical approval reported

315 (59.9)

211 (40.1)

 < 0.001

Not reported

2 (11.1)

16 (88.9)