Skip to main content

Table 1 Assessment of domains by usual peer reviewer, reference standard, and early career peer reviewer

From: Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study

Usual peer reviewer➢ For CONSORT domains:
For each manuscript included, determine whether the peer reviewers and/or editors raised some concern on the completeness of reporting of the following CONSORT items. The assessment of all peer-review reports and editors’ comments for each manuscript need to be combined.
- Yes, some concern was raised
- No, some concern was not raised
➢ For switched outcomes:
For each manuscript included, check whether peer reviewers and/or editors identified inconsistency between data registered and reported for the primary outcome(s).
- Yes, inconsistency was detected
- No, inconsistency was not detected
- Not available, because the study was not registered or the protocol was not available
Comments: For blinding domains researchers could quote “unblinded study.” Moreover, if the domain was considered partially reported or not reported, it was quoted as not reported.
Reference standard➢ For CONSORT domains:
Now you will have to evaluate in each RCT if authors correctly reported all key elements of selected CONSORT items. Please evaluate whether authors correctly reported all key elements of the domain considered. Rate items as inadequately reported only if the reporting is a real barrier to the conduct of a systematic review.
- Completely reported
- Partially reported
- Not reported
➢ For switched outcomes:
Did authors register their protocol after the beginning of the study?
- Yes
- No
- Not available
Inconsistency between data registered and reported for the primary outcome(s) (i.e., at least one primary outcome added, deleted, or changed)?
- Yes
- No
- Not available, because the study was not registered or the protocol is not available
- Unable to assess (i.e., outcomes insufficiently described in the register)
Comments: For blinding domains researchers could quote “not available because blinding was impossible.” Moreover, domains partially reported or not reported were quoted as not reported.
Early career peer reviewerSee Additional file 5