Evaluating the Impact of Assessing During Peer Review the CONSORT Checklist Submitted by Authors

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

24 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2018-12-07

Study Completion Date

2019-04-13

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Randomised trials are considered the gold standard in medical research. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement aims to improve the quality of reporting of randomised trials. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings, and therefore these findings cannot inform clinical practice. Different stakeholders, including biomedical journals, have taken different actions to try to improve author adherence to CONSORT. The most popular action among biomedical journals is to instruct authors to submit a completed RG checklist with page numbers indicating where the CONSORT items are addressed when they submit their manuscript. However, this measure alone has been proven not to be effective. In this study, the investigators intend to evaluate in a real editorial context whether assessing during peer review the consistency between the submitted CONSORT checklist and the information reported in the manuscripts of randomised trials, as well as to provide feedback to authors on the inconsistencies found, improves the completeness of reporting of published trials.

Related Clinical Trials

Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.

A Short CONSORT Checklist for Peer Reviewers to Improve the Reporting of Randomised Controlled Trials Published

NCT05820971

Adequate Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials

COMPLETED NA

Web-based Tool to Improve Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials

NCT01891448

Randomized Controlled Trial

COMPLETED NA

Web-based Tool to Improve the Assessment of Reporting (COBPeer)

NCT03119376

Peer Review

COMPLETED NA

Testing for the Presence of Authorship Bias in Peer Review

NCT02739737

Peer Review

COMPLETED NA

Randomised Study Within a Review (SWAR) to Compare Communication of the Findings of Systematic Reviews to the Public by Plain Language Summary or Video Abstract

NCT07333924

Behavioral Changes

NOT_YET_RECRUITING PHASE3

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Randomised trials are considered the gold standard in medical research. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement aims to improve the quality of reporting of randomised trials. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings, and therefore these findings cannot inform clinical practice.

In recent years, different stakeholders have acted to boost the completeness of reporting of the published randomised trials, and therefore their transparency and reproducibility. In a recently completed scoping review, the investigators identified and classified 31 interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. This review revealed that it is primarily journals that have taken most efforts to improve the completeness of reporting of randomised trials - although most of their actions have been shown not to have the desired effect.

One of the most popular strategies used by journals to improve adherence to CONSORT requires authors to submit a populated checklist together with their manuscript indicating page numbers corresponding to each item. However, journals usually lack further actions throughout the editorial process to ensure that the corresponding information to each item is reported in the randomised trial manuscript. This has been hypothesized to be one of the reasons why this editorial strategy has not achieved optimal results.

In an effort to take full advantage of requiring the submission of populated checklists, the investigators intend to evaluate in a real editorial context whether assessing during peer review the consistency between the submitted CONSORT checklist and the information reported in the manuscripts of randomised trials, as well as to provide feedback to authors on the inconsistencies found, improves the completeness of reporting of published trials.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Peer Review, Publishing Completeness of Reporting

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Participants Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Intervention arm

Evaluation of reporting inconsistencies between the CONSORT checklist and the information reported in the manuscript. Feedback is provided to authors.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Evaluation of reporting inconsistencies

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

1. The completed CONSORT checklist submitted by authors of manuscripts randomised to the intervention group will be assessed by the lead investigator (DB) as to whether it is consistent with the information that was actually reported in the manuscript. This evaluation will be focused on 8 core CONSORT items.
2. DB will produce a standardised report containing precise requests for authors in order to improve the completeness of reporting of the items where reporting inconsistencies were found. This report will consist of a brief introduction followed by a point by point description of the inconsistencies found together with precise requests related to the information missing and examples extracted from CONSORT. DB will upload this report to the submission on the managing system of the journal (Scholar One) to make it accessible to the handling editor of the manuscript.
3. This editor will include the report in the letter to authors alongside the standard peer review reports.

Control arm

Standard peer review process.

Group Type OTHER

Standard Peer Review.

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Manuscripts will undergo the usual peer review process.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Evaluation of reporting inconsistencies

1. The completed CONSORT checklist submitted by authors of manuscripts randomised to the intervention group will be assessed by the lead investigator (DB) as to whether it is consistent with the information that was actually reported in the manuscript. This evaluation will be focused on 8 core CONSORT items.
2. DB will produce a standardised report containing precise requests for authors in order to improve the completeness of reporting of the items where reporting inconsistencies were found. This report will consist of a brief introduction followed by a point by point description of the inconsistencies found together with precise requests related to the information missing and examples extracted from CONSORT. DB will upload this report to the submission on the managing system of the journal (Scholar One) to make it accessible to the handling editor of the manuscript.
3. This editor will include the report in the letter to authors alongside the standard peer review reports.

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Standard Peer Review.

Manuscripts will undergo the usual peer review process.

Intervention Type BEHAVIORAL

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

Manuscripts will be eligible if:

* They have been submitted to BMJ Open,
* They are original research submissions reporting the results of a randomised trial, and
* They have passed the first editorial filters and have been subsequently sent out for peer review.
* Authors of these manuscripts have provided a completed CONSORT checklist.

According to the official CONSORT extensions, the investigators will also consider other study designs (cluster, non-inferiority and equivalence, pragmatic, N-of-1 trials, Pilot and feasibility, and within person trials), and different intervention types (Herbal, non-pharmacologic, acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine formulas) in all areas of clinical specialty.