An assessment of the quality of reporting randomised controlled trials published in paediatric dentistry journals.

AIM

The objectives of this study are to compare the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2011 and 2012 within five paediatric dentistry journals.

STUDY DESIGN

RCTs published in the years 2011 and 2012 were hand-searched by one reviewer. After randomisation and blinding, these journals were independently scored by two blinded reviewers based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist.

METHODS

A total of 59 articles were included for analysis and 70 criteria were scored dichotomously as '1' when reported and '0' when not reported. Descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA tests were performed.

RESULTS

The Gwets AC1 Inter rater reliability coefficient was calculated as 0.85 (95 % C.I 0.84-0.86) indicating excellent correlation between the two reviewers. Only 19 articles (32.2 %) reported more than half (35/70) of the expected criteria. Descriptive statistics showed that sections such as introduction, results and discussion were reported better than abstract, materials and methods and other information. One-way ANOVA tests showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the reporting of criteria across different journals and there was also no significant difference between the articles published in 2011 and 2012 (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The general quality of reporting of RCTs in paediatric dentistry journals was inadequate. Authors, reviewers and journal guidelines must work together towards a common goal for improving the quality of reporting of RCTs.