Mapping the reporting practices in recent randomised controlled trials published in : A scoping review of methodological quality.

UNLABELLED

The official medical journals of scientific societies advocate for high-quality standards. It's important to assess whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in influential journals, such as the hybrid journal of the European Society of , and (), adhere to reporting guidelines and best practices. Therefore, the present scoping review aimed to explore and map the reporting practices and methodological quality in recent RCTs published in the () journal, focusing on identifying gaps in adherence to reporting guidelines and transparency. The study was preregistered and followed the PRISMA-ScR checklist. RCTs published in between 2022 and 2023 were included. The search was conducted via PubMed. A two-stage selection process was employed, with two independent reviewers conducting study selection and data extraction. Data collected included study characteristics, intervention details, sample size calculation reporting, data transparency, and adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines. Critical appraisal was conducted using the JBI tool for RCTs. All included RCTs ( = 25) reported a predetermined minimum sample size. Study protocol preregistration was reported in 52% of the RCTs, while only 24% provided data availability statements. Most RCTs offering data availability indicated data would be shared upon request. Adherence to CONSORT guidelines was reported in 96% of studies, with only one RCT not adhering to recognized reporting standards. All the included studies adequately addressed statistical conclusion validity. However, internal validity was less consistently addressed across the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

While most recently published RCTs in adhered to CONSORT guidelines, there is potential for improvement in the reporting of protocol preregistration and data availability statements. Although all studies reported sample size calculations, transparency in data sharing remains limited.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.