We observed a significantly better reporting in eight of 22 items in the post-CONSORT compared to the pre-CONSORT period.
When grouped into GPJ and HICJ, HICJ have significantly higher fulfilled CONSORT criteria as compared to GPJ.
We hypothesized that HICJ would have higher (closer to level I) mean LOE and higher CONSORT ratings (more fulfilled criteria), compared to GPJ.
Although no significant differences in quality of reporting were found across journals in CONSORT checklist, average CONSORT scores were significantly higher in the grouped HICJ compared to GPJ (15.2 vs. 13.6, respectively, p = 0.001).
In the post-CONSORT years, 1997 2003, the term appeared in 85% of the titles or abstracts, compared to 68% in the seven years before CONSORT (1990 96); mean difference was 17%95%5% CI 8.3 to 25.9%; p = 0.001).
In the post-CONSORT years, 1997 2003, the percentage of RCTs with random in the title or abstract was 85%, a mean increase of 17% compared to the seven years pre-CONSORT (95% CI, 8.3% to 25.9%).
However the quality and yield of these varieties are poor as compared to non-resistant strains and only Consort is reliably self-fertile.
There was no apparent difference in CONSORT-PRO scores between RCTs with a significant difference in the primary RCT endpoint, compared to RCTs with no primary significant differences, or in RCTs reporting a significant difference in the PRO endpoint (n = 19) compared to RCTs reporting no significant PRO difference (Additional file 3: Appendix 3b).
The study quality has improved compared to the recommendations of 2004 and the publications corresponded more well to the requirements of the "CONSORT statement" [67].
Among reports published post-2004 (44 reports), the odds of reporting ethical approval was 8.85 (95% CI 1.34 to 58.34) times higher among those reports published in journals with moderate-to-strong extended CONSORT endorsement, when compared with those published in journals with low CONSORT endorsement.
Assess (i) the quality of reporting and handling of missing data (MD) in palliative care trials, (ii) whether there are differences in the reporting of criteria specified by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement compared with those not specified, and (iii) the association of the reporting of MD with journal impact factor and CONSORT endorsement status.
