The phrase "adequacy of reporting" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when discussing the sufficiency or quality of information provided in reports, particularly in contexts like audits, assessments, or evaluations.
Example: "The adequacy of reporting in the financial statements was questioned during the audit process."
Alternatives: "sufficiency of reporting" or "quality of reporting".
To summarize the current gaps in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) research evidence, describe the adequacy of reporting "implications for research," and map the number of studies that inform reviews with the prevalence of HIV for each country.
Furthermore, the adequacy of reporting data was evaluated and the missing follow up was taken into account.
Finally, we assessed whether the adequacy of reporting of risk of bias domains improved over time.
There were significant reductions neither in the proportions of studies at high risk of bias over time nor in the adequacy of reporting of risk of bias domains.
In a study that directly compared the adequacy of reporting between journal articles and CSRs, the authors found that complete information regarding greater than 40% of methods items were only available in CSRs.
Quality assessments in previous studies may have been affected by incomplete reporting in published articles, as evaluations of the risk of bias in trials may have been confused with assessment of the adequacy of reporting [ 25].
Risk of bias was based on the adequacy of reported allocation concealment, and was categorised as: low risk of bias (e.g. telephone or central randomisation; consecutively numbered sealed opaque envelopes); or high risk of bias (open random allocation; unsealed or non-opaque envelopes, alternation; date of birth, or method not stated).
Our objectives were to assess harms reporting in 3 major pain journals (European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN®) to determine whether harms reporting improved following publication of the 2004 CONSORT recommendations, and to examine study factors associated with adequacy of harms reporting.
The aim of this paper is to systematically review the evidence from previously conducted empirical studies that have assessed the adequacy of harms reporting in RCTs using the CONSORT-harms extension as a benchmark.
The United States Food and Drug Administration FDAareare currently producing guidelines for the scientific adequacy of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials, which will have implications for the selection of scales used in future clinical trials.
We then developed eight 'yes'/'no' items (Figure 3), worded so that emphasis was placed on quality of reporting rather than adequacy of trial design.
