Skip to main content

Table 3 Results for ECRs when performing the training module. The module contained two extracts per domains that the ECR had to evaluate. The answer was considered appropriate when all bullet points were correctly assessed

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

Items assessedPercentage of correct answers
n/N (%)
 - Item 6a (Outcomes)83/238 (34.9)
 - Item 8a (Randomization/sequence generation)α221/237 (92.3)
 - Item 9 (Allocation concealment mechanism)186/238 (78.2)
 - Item 11a/b (Blinding)107/238 (45.0)
 - Item 13a/b (Participant flow)77/238 (32.4)
 - Item 17a (Outcomes and estimation)152/238 (63.9)
 - Item 19 (Harms)β97/238 (41.1)
 - Item 23 (Trial registration)238/238 (100.0)
Switch in primary outcomesδ
 - Outcome(s) reported by the authors as primary outcome(s) while not registered as such116/198 (58.6)
 - Outcome(s) registered as primary outcome but not reported as such in the manuscript103/198 (52.0)
  1. Data are n (%)
  2. αOne missing value, βTwo missing values, δ40 missing values. All missing values due because of a technical issue