An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently.
BACKGROUND
We aimed to determine if specialist journals implement specific Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations to the same extent as general medical journals.


METHODS
Analysis of random controlled trials (RCTs) in five general medical journals (n=100) and 10 specialist journals (n=100), all endorsing CONSORT. We evaluated the likelihood of reporting important methodologic criteria. Analyses controlled for the nested effect of journal within each journal type.


RESULTS
General medical journals published, on average, more CONSORT items per RCT than specialist journals (7.9 [SD 1.8] vs. 6.5 [SD 2.2] out of 11 possible items, P=.02). When compared with specialist journals, RCTs in general medical journals published a participant flow diagram more frequently (83 vs. 42%, odds ratio [OR] 6.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4-12.9) and more likely to report the method of randomization (78 vs. 55%, OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5-5.3) and allocation concealment (48 vs. 26%, OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.4-4.7); they were less likely to publish RCTs reporting adverse events (58 vs. 78%, OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.7). Both page length and impact factor were weakly associated with number of CONSORT items reported.


CONCLUSIONS
General medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT do not enforce reporting issues consistently, with specialty journals lagging behind general medical journals.
Mills
Edward
E
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, HSC-2C12, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5, Canada. millscj@mcmaster.ca
Wu
Ping
P
Gagnier
Joel
J
Heels-Ansdell
Diane
D
Montori
Victor M
VM
D015510:Clinical Medicine; D008511:Medicine; D010506:Periodicals as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D013038:Specialization