There was an increase over time (p < 0.001) in the number of checklist items included in the reports (Table 2).
We compared the number of checklist criteria included in each report and the mean number of criteria included within each subheading as specified in the CONSORT checklist.
The concern with the rigour and credibility of qualitative methods has lead to the development of a number of checklist for assessing qualitative research.
Between the 1980s, when 10.8 checklist items were reported, and the 1990s, when 13.4 checklist items were reported, there was a 24% increase in the number of checklist items reported (p = 0.001; mean difference = -2.55 (95% confidence interval: -4.28, -0.81).
As a large number of checklist items may not be satisfactorily answered with a binary response (yes/no), the intermediate category (partial) was included to represent the situation where a review had satisfied some, but not all of the criteria for an individual item.
The number of CONSORT checklist items reported was compared over time (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s) using an analysis of variance.
The quality of each report was assessed using the number of CONSORT checklist items included, the frequency of unclear allocation concealment, and a 5-point quality assessment instrument.
The primary outcome measure was the average value of the sum of (i) global rating scale (GRS) scores and (ii) total number of procedural checklist items as assessed by the two blinded experts.
Feedback from the academic assessors suggested that the academic assignments would benefit from reducing the overall number of task checklist items and more carefully discriminating between them through a clarification of the items.
