A Literature-Based Study

Results: A total of 138 articles were included and analyzed. Reporting quality was very mixed. Key areas that were infrequently reported included sample size calculations (n=10 [7%]), missing data (n=8 [6%]), losses to follow-up (n=17 [12%]), and statistical methods (n=19 [14%]). Only 13 studies (9%) explained the role of funders in the research. The quality of reporting was similar across study designs for “critical” questions with the exception of reporting of participant details, which was better reported in cohort studies (96%) compared with cross-sectional (80%) and case-control (70%) studies.

[1]  C. Paul,et al.  CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals , 2009, The British journal of dermatology.

[2]  K. Knobloch,et al.  Quality of reporting in sports injury prevention abstracts according to the CONSORT and STROBE criteria: an analysis of the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention in 2005 and 2008 , 2009, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[3]  M. Egger,et al.  Strengthening the reporting of observational epidemiology (STROBE) in sexual health , 2009, Sexually Transmitted Infections.

[4]  S. Bakri,et al.  Applying the CONSORT and STROBE statements to evaluate the reporting quality of neovascular age-related macular degeneration studies. , 2009, Ophthalmology.

[5]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2007, Preventive medicine.

[6]  V. McCormack,et al.  Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  D. Moher,et al.  Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. , 2001, JAMA.

[8]  D. Moher,et al.  The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration , 2001, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  H. Williams,et al.  How well are randomized controlled trials reported in the dermatology literature? , 2000, Archives of dermatology.

[10]  D. Rennie,et al.  How to report randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[11]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[12]  H. C. Williams,et al.  Inadequate size of ‘negative’ clinical trials in dermatology , 1993, The British journal of dermatology.

[13]  R. Stern,et al.  An evaluation of method reporting and use in clinical trials in dermatology. , 1985, Archives of dermatology.

[14]  B. Charbonnel.  Reporting genetic association studies: the STREGA statement , 2009 .