Earticle

Objective: This study evaluated and compared the adherence to the CONSORT for quality of reports on the randomized controlled trials (RCT) abstracts by four major Korean Science Citation Index (SCI) journals and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Methods: A descriptive analysis of published RCT abstracts in Korean SCI journals and NEJM from 2007/01 to 2011/06 was conducted by two reviewers, independently extracting data from a PubMed search. A modification of CONSORT for abstract was used including 16 checklist items. Reporting of checklist items for individual group was conducted to compare adherence patterns between two groups. Results: We identified the potential 57 RCT abstracts from Korean SCI and 50 from NEJM meeting our inclusion criteria; among them, three abstracts from Korean SCI and one from NEJM were excluded. Among total 16 checklist items based on CONSORT statement, Korean SCI journals and NEJM were statistically equivalent in 4 items; Korean journals were better in three items and NEJM were in nine. The methodological quality domains were inadequately reported in both journals: allocation concealment about 1.9% and 4.0%, and blinding 44.4% and 40.8%. In general, The CONSORT adherence of NEJM was better than that of Korean SCI in the method and result domain (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The quality of NEJM reporting of RCT abstracts was better than that of Korean SCI, in general. This study on adherence of RCT reports from Korean SCI journals and NEJM abstracts to the CONSORT statement reveals that there is a need for improvement, especially Korean SCI. Further investigation on the quality of RCT reports and ways to improve reporting quality is required.

Objectives and methods : The Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) were published in five journals in 2001 and 2002. These guidelines, in the form of a checklist and explanations for use by authors and journal editors, were designed to improve reporting of acupuncture trials, particularly the interventions, thereby facilitating their interpretation and replication. Subsequent reviews of the application and impact of STRICTA have highlighted the value of STRICTA as well as scope for improvements and revision. To manage the revision process a collaboration between the STRICTA Group, the CONSORT Group, and the Chinese Cochrane Centre was developed in 2008. An expert panel with 47 participants was convened that provided electronic feedback on a revised draft of the checklist. At a subsequent face-to-face meeting in Freiburg, a group of 21 participants further revised the STRICTA checklist and planned dissemination. Results : The new STRICTA checklist, which is an official extension of CONSORT, includes six items and 17 sub-items. These set out reporting guidelines for the acupuncture rationale, the details of needling, the treatment regimen, other components of treatment, the practitioner background, and the control or comparator interventions. In addition, and as part of this revision process, the explanations for each item have been elaborated, and examples of good reporting for each item are provided. In addition, the word "controlled" in STRICTA is replaced by "clinical", to indicate that STRICTA is applicable to a broad range of clinical evaluation designs, including uncontrolled outcome studies and case reports. Conclusions : It is intended that the revised STRICTA, in conjunction with both the main CONSORT Statement and extension for nonpharmacologic treatment, will raise the quality of reporting of clinical trials of acupuncture.