With the development of mobile technology and smartphones, the mobile health intervention project emerges, attracting grant fundings and creating new chances in healthcare. However, there is still few evidence to confirm the effectiveness of the mobile-health intervention, a possible cause being the lack of quality of research reporting, which needs to be improved for better identification, duplication and promotion of research projects. This paper interprets and analyses of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile Health Application and onLine TeleHealth (CONSORT-EHEALTH), in an effort to provide a reference for conducting mobile health related controlled trials research.
Objective To investigate the current situation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on compound salvia pellet (CSP) for angina pectoris and assess whether there is adequate evidence for clinical practice. Methods We collected all the published clinical studies on CSP for angina pectoris from 1994 to December 2005, and assessed each included report using the Jadad scale, the revised CONSORT statement and other self-edited items. Results We finally identified 115 RCTs. Among which, 1 scored 3 points, 6 scored 2 points, 106 scored 1 points and 2 socred 0 points. No RCT performed allocation concealment according to the CONSORT criteria, only 4 RCTs (3.5%) described the generation of the randomization sequence, among which 2 were quasi-randomized. No RCT provided randomization implementation,1 RCT (0.9%) carried out placebo control, 1 RCT (0.9%) reported endpoint, 9 RCTs (7.8%) adopted single blinding, 4 RCTs (3.5%) reported double blinding, 11 RCTs (9.6%) calculated statistical values, 2 RCTs (1.7%) provided the record of follow-up, 1 RCT (0.9%) reported negative outcome, 25 RCTs (21.8%) described adverse events, no RCT described how the sample size was estimated, and how an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis and correlation analysis were reported, 1 RCT (0.9%) was multi-center, no RCT completed ethical approval and informed consent, 27 RCTs (23.5%) described syndrome type of TCM. Conclusion Currently, the methodology and reporting of studies on CSP for angina pectoris are not good enough to provide reliable evidence for clinical practice.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting quality of domestic and foreign randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on acupuncture for dry eye based on Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Expand Statement 2010 (CONSORT 2010) and Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA).MethodsCNKI, VIP, CBM, WanFang Data, PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched to collect RCTs of acupuncture for dry eye at home and abroad from inception to February 2020. The reporting quality of the selected literature was evaluated with the items in the CONSORT and STRICTA, respectively.ResultsA total of 69 Chinese literatures and 8 English literatures were included. The average reporting rate of all items of CONSORT in Chinese and English literatures was 41.4% and 56.4%, respectively. The missing items of Chinese literature report primarily focused on the sections of “methodology”, “results”, and “other information”. The Chinese and English literature report rate was relatively close in terms of the literature report rate of STRICTA, and both were relatively complete in the description of acupuncture intervention.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of RCTs of acupuncture treatment for dry eye in China and abroad is generally low. Further improving the relevant reporting quality according to the CONSORT statement 2010 and STRICTA 2010 is urgent.
Objective To evaluate the reporting quality and influencing factors of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of lung cancer. Methods RCTs of lung cancer with PRO as either primary or secondary endpoints were searched from PubMed, EMbase, Medline, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases between January 1, 2010 and April 20, 2024. Reporting quality of included RCTs were assessed based on the CONSORT-PRO extension. Descriptive statistics and bivariate regression analysis were used to describe the reporting quality and analyze the factors influencing the reporting quality. Results A total of 740 articles were retrieved. After screening, 53 eligible RCTs of lung cancer with 22 780 patients were included. The patients were mainly with non-small cell lung cancer (84.91%), with the median sample size of the included studies was 364.0 (160.5, 599.5) patients. The primary PRO tool used was the EORTC QLQ-C30 (60.38%). There were 52 (98.11%) studies whose PRO measured the domain of "symptom management of cough, dyspnea, fatigue, pain, etc.", and 45 (84.91%) studies measured "health-related quality of life". Multicenter studies accounted for 84.91%, and randomized non-blind trials accounted for 62.26%. PRO was used as the primary endpoint in 33.96% of the studies and as secondary endpoints in 66.04%. The reliability and validity of the PRO tools were explicitly mentioned in 11.32% and 7.55% of the studies, respectively. The average completeness of reporting according to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines was 60.00%, ranging from 25.00% to 93.00%. The main factors affecting the completeness of CONSORT-PRO reporting included sample size and publication year. For every increment in sample size, the completeness of reporting increased by 27.5% (SE=0.00, t=2.040, P=0.046). Additionally, studies published after 2018 had a 67.2% higher completeness of reporting compared to those published in or before 2018 (SE=17.8, t=–3.273, P=0.006). Conclusion The study reveals that the overall reporting quality of PRO in lung cancer RCTs is poor. Particularly, the reporting of PRO measures reliability and validity, PRO assumptions, applicability, and handling of missing data need further improvement. Future research should emphasize comprehensive adherence to the CONSORT-PRO guidelines.
The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) is an internationally recognized guideline for reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs), aiming to enhance the transparency, completeness, and reliability of trial findings. In response to the ongoing evolution of clinical trial methodology, the CONSORT group has issued updates to the CONSORT statement in 2001, 2010, and most recently in 2025. This article provides an applied interpretation of the background and key components of the CONSORT 2025 statement through the lens of a representative randomized controlled trial, with the aim of offering practical guidance and reference for domestic researchers utilizing this reporting tool.
The complete, transparent, and standardized reporting of the outcome of a clinical trial is a key factor in ensuring the practicality, reproducibility, and transparency of the trial, and reducing bias in selective reporting. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement provides normative guidelines for reporting clinical trials. In December 2022, JAMA released the guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial reports (CONSORT-Outcomes) 2022 extension, aiming to explain the entries related to trial outcomes, sample size, statistical methods, and auxiliary analysis in the CONSORT 2010 statement, to further improve the standards for outcome reporting in clinical trial reports. This article combines research examples to interpret the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension, in order to provide normative references for domestic scholars to report clinical research results.
Objective To assess the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials(RCTs) on traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) in China from 1999 to 2004 by CONSORT statement and Jadad scale. Methods We randomly selected 13 journals of TCM including Chinese Journal of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine,ect using stratified sampling from about 100 journals of TCM in mainland China, and all issues of selected journals published from 1999 to 2004 were hand-searched according to the hand-search guideline developed by Cochrane Collaboration. All reviewers were trained in the method of evaluating RCTs . A comprehensive quality assessment of each RCT was completed using methods including the revised consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) checklist and Jadad scale. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Results A total of 7422 RCTs were identified, and the percentage of RCTs was significantly increased by 18.6%, 23.9%, 27.5%, 28.8%, 33.0% and 35.6% from 1999 to 2004. The mean Jadad score was 1.03 ± 0.61 in all trials with 1 RCT with 5 points, 14 with 4 points, and 102 with 3 points, from 1999 to 2004, the mean Jadad score was 0.85±0.53 (n=746), 0.82±0.63 (n=941), 0.90±0.61 (n=1 243), 1.03±0.60 (n=1 325), 1.12±0.58 (n=1 533) and 1.20±0.62 (n=1 634) respectively, which was improved continuously but slowly. 39.4% of the items in CONSORT, which was equivalent to 11.82 (standard deviation=5.78) of a total of 30 items, were reported across those trials. Some important methodological components of RCTs such as sample size calculation (1.1%), randomization sequence (7.9%), allocation concealment (0.3%), implementation of the random allocation sequence (0.0%) , analysis of intention to treat (0.0%), were incompletely reported. Conclusion Our study suggests that the quality of reporting has been improved but still in poor status, which would urgently promote the establishment of the CONSORT for TCM.
Objective To investigate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) on laparoscopic surgery for treating colorectal disease in three SCI indexed. Methods We electronically retrieved the Ovid MEDLINE(R) from 1950 to present with Daily Updates for RCTs on laparoscopic surgery published in Diseases of the Colon amp; Rectum, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, or Colorectal Disease. The revised CONSORT statement and additional surgical items were adopted to assess the reporting quality. One point was assigned for each full description of an item, 0 for no description, and 0.5 for a partial description. Results A total of 20 RCTs were included and 8 RCTs were excluded. Their reporting quality was low. The average scores for the following items were relatively lower, 0.150 for settings where data collected; 0.250 for sample size estimation; 0.500 for sequence generation of randomization; 0.325 for allocation concealment; 0.150 for implementation; 0.475 for measurement of outcome; 0.150 for participant flow chart; 0.450 for adverse events; 0.450 for external validity; 0.400 for financial conflicts of interest; 0.250 for perioperative pharmacological treatment; 0.075 for perioperative nonphamacological treatment; 0.000 for participation of a trial methodologist; 0.350 for surgeon’s experience (years or position). Items with the lower scores were mainly in the methods and results section and surgical items. Conclusions The reporting quality of laparoscopic RCTs in these journals is low. Colorectal surgeons should rigorously evaluate reports in these journals before they apply to them in clinical practice.