Adherence of Randomized Controlled Trials to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Guidelines: A Survey of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 2011-2016 in 3 Periodontology Journals

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JCP), Journal of Periodontology (JOP), and Journal of Periodontal Research (JPR), published in the years 2011 until 2016, using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines. Methods: A thorough search of PubMed for RCTs published between January 2011 and December 2016 in the three journals was carried out. The CONSORT 2010 checklist (36 questions) was used to evaluate the adherence of these RCTs to these guidelines. A modified CONSORT score was calculated and categorized as “perfect” (100%), “excellent” (80%-99%), “good” (60%-79%), “modest” (40%-59%), and “poor” (<40%). Results: A total of 369 RCTs were published in the three periodontology journals from 2011 until 2016. Based on the modified CONSORT score among all the RCTs, title, abstract, and introduction sections of the included RCTs showed good adherence to the CONSORT 2010 guidelines (60%-79%), whereas the adherence was poor for half the items in methodology (<40%), results (<40%), and discussion (40%). The highest modified CONSORT score was obtained for the trials published in the JCP from 2011 to 2016, whereas the lowest score was achieved by the RCTs in the JPR. Overall, none of the RCTs in any of the journals were perfect in reporting the trials as per the guidelines. Almost half of the RCTs in the JCP showed good adherence (51.1%), whereas almost three-fourths of the RCTs in the JOP (72%) and JPR (82.7%) showed modest to poor adherence as per the reporting guidelines (P < .001). Conclusion: Among the three periodontology journals assessed, the JCP showed better adherence than the JOP and JPR from 2011 until 2016.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice
DOIs
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 01-01-2019

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Guidelines
Research
Surveys and Questionnaires
Checklist
PubMed

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

@article{36f20f455e794493ae98155a3d95ade3,
title = "Adherence of Randomized Controlled Trials to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Guidelines: A Survey of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 2011-2016 in 3 Periodontology Journals",
abstract = "Objective: To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JCP), Journal of Periodontology (JOP), and Journal of Periodontal Research (JPR), published in the years 2011 until 2016, using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines. Methods: A thorough search of PubMed for RCTs published between January 2011 and December 2016 in the three journals was carried out. The CONSORT 2010 checklist (36 questions) was used to evaluate the adherence of these RCTs to these guidelines. A modified CONSORT score was calculated and categorized as “perfect” (100{\%}), “excellent” (80{\%}-99{\%}), “good” (60{\%}-79{\%}), “modest” (40{\%}-59{\%}), and “poor” (<40{\%}). Results: A total of 369 RCTs were published in the three periodontology journals from 2011 until 2016. Based on the modified CONSORT score among all the RCTs, title, abstract, and introduction sections of the included RCTs showed good adherence to the CONSORT 2010 guidelines (60{\%}-79{\%}), whereas the adherence was poor for half the items in methodology (<40{\%}), results (<40{\%}), and discussion (40{\%}). The highest modified CONSORT score was obtained for the trials published in the JCP from 2011 to 2016, whereas the lowest score was achieved by the RCTs in the JPR. Overall, none of the RCTs in any of the journals were perfect in reporting the trials as per the guidelines. Almost half of the RCTs in the JCP showed good adherence (51.1{\%}), whereas almost three-fourths of the RCTs in the JOP (72{\%}) and JPR (82.7{\%}) showed modest to poor adherence as per the reporting guidelines (P < .001). Conclusion: Among the three periodontology journals assessed, the JCP showed better adherence than the JOP and JPR from 2011 until 2016.",
author = "Hanan Siddiq and Pentapati, {Kalyana Chakravarthy} and Shashidhar Acharya",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jebdp.2019.04.001",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice",
issn = "1532-3382",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adherence of Randomized Controlled Trials to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Guidelines

T2 - A Survey of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 2011-2016 in 3 Periodontology Journals

AU - Siddiq, Hanan

AU - Pentapati, Kalyana Chakravarthy

AU - Acharya, Shashidhar

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objective: To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JCP), Journal of Periodontology (JOP), and Journal of Periodontal Research (JPR), published in the years 2011 until 2016, using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines. Methods: A thorough search of PubMed for RCTs published between January 2011 and December 2016 in the three journals was carried out. The CONSORT 2010 checklist (36 questions) was used to evaluate the adherence of these RCTs to these guidelines. A modified CONSORT score was calculated and categorized as “perfect” (100%), “excellent” (80%-99%), “good” (60%-79%), “modest” (40%-59%), and “poor” (<40%). Results: A total of 369 RCTs were published in the three periodontology journals from 2011 until 2016. Based on the modified CONSORT score among all the RCTs, title, abstract, and introduction sections of the included RCTs showed good adherence to the CONSORT 2010 guidelines (60%-79%), whereas the adherence was poor for half the items in methodology (<40%), results (<40%), and discussion (40%). The highest modified CONSORT score was obtained for the trials published in the JCP from 2011 to 2016, whereas the lowest score was achieved by the RCTs in the JPR. Overall, none of the RCTs in any of the journals were perfect in reporting the trials as per the guidelines. Almost half of the RCTs in the JCP showed good adherence (51.1%), whereas almost three-fourths of the RCTs in the JOP (72%) and JPR (82.7%) showed modest to poor adherence as per the reporting guidelines (P < .001). Conclusion: Among the three periodontology journals assessed, the JCP showed better adherence than the JOP and JPR from 2011 until 2016.

AB - Objective: To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JCP), Journal of Periodontology (JOP), and Journal of Periodontal Research (JPR), published in the years 2011 until 2016, using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines. Methods: A thorough search of PubMed for RCTs published between January 2011 and December 2016 in the three journals was carried out. The CONSORT 2010 checklist (36 questions) was used to evaluate the adherence of these RCTs to these guidelines. A modified CONSORT score was calculated and categorized as “perfect” (100%), “excellent” (80%-99%), “good” (60%-79%), “modest” (40%-59%), and “poor” (<40%). Results: A total of 369 RCTs were published in the three periodontology journals from 2011 until 2016. Based on the modified CONSORT score among all the RCTs, title, abstract, and introduction sections of the included RCTs showed good adherence to the CONSORT 2010 guidelines (60%-79%), whereas the adherence was poor for half the items in methodology (<40%), results (<40%), and discussion (40%). The highest modified CONSORT score was obtained for the trials published in the JCP from 2011 to 2016, whereas the lowest score was achieved by the RCTs in the JPR. Overall, none of the RCTs in any of the journals were perfect in reporting the trials as per the guidelines. Almost half of the RCTs in the JCP showed good adherence (51.1%), whereas almost three-fourths of the RCTs in the JOP (72%) and JPR (82.7%) showed modest to poor adherence as per the reporting guidelines (P < .001). Conclusion: Among the three periodontology journals assessed, the JCP showed better adherence than the JOP and JPR from 2011 until 2016.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065621553&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065621553&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jebdp.2019.04.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jebdp.2019.04.001

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85065621553

JO - Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice

JF - Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice

SN - 1532-3382

ER -