Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Completeness of reporting and a switch in primary outcome as rated by the reference standard (two systematic reviewers) for the sample of 119 manuscripts

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

CONSORT items incompletely reportedN = 119 (%)
- Item 6a (Outcomes)58 (48.7)
- Item 8a (Randomization/sequence generation)38 (31.9)
- Item 9 (Allocation concealment mechanism)62 (52.1)
- Items 11a/11b (Blinding)51 (42.9)
- Items 13a/13b (Participant flow)39 (32.8)
- Item 17a (Outcomes and estimation)48 (40.3)
- Item 19 (Harms)71 (59.7)
- Item 23 (Trial registration)18 (15.1)
Switch in primary outcomes
- Yes36 (30.3)
  1. Data are n (%)