Skip to main content

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 reported

N = 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

- Yes

36 (30.3)

  1. Data are n (%)