Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of evidence based medicine. Ιt is crucial that RCTs have transparent reporting to facilitate their interpretation. The purpose of the present study is the evaluation of the reporting quality of RCTs for novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in venous thromboembolism (VTE) based on the CONSORT statement. MEDLINE was meticulously searched, while quoted references by retrieved RCTs were manually screened. The primary objective was to establish the mean CONSORT compliance of RCTs for NOACs in VTE. Secondary objectives were the calculation of compliance per CONSORT item and the investigation for probable determining factors with regards to the reporting quality of RCTs. Reporting above 70% of the items was defined as adequate compliance to the CONSORT statement. A total of 83 articles were considered eligible. Mean adherence to the CONSORT statement was 61.84%, standard deviation (SD) = 18.72. Among retrieved studies, 35 (42.17%) reported above 70% of the items, while 48 (57.83%) described less than 70% of the items. Inter-rater agreement was satisfactory (Cohen’s kappa ≥ 0.75). Items with respect to randomization and blinding were principally underreported, whereas the rest of the methodological features and results were more sufficiently reported. Logistic regression failed to demonstrate significant effect for any of the factors investigated. Impact factor [odds ratio (OR) = 1.347, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.994, 1.826), p = 0.055], number of authors [OR = 1.277, 95% CI (0.975, 1.672), p = 0.076] and presentation of participant flow-diagram [OR = 55.358, 95% CI (0.914, 3351.765), p = 0.055], came closer to significance. Exploratory analysis revealed significant, strong, positive correlation between abstract and article adherence to the CONSORT guidelines (r = 0.851, p < 0.001). Reporting quality of RCTs for NOACs in VTE is moderate. A superior reporting quality is desirable, especially relating to randomization and blinding.
CONSORT Randomized Controlled Trials New Oral Anticoagulants Venous thromboembolism Pulmonary embolism Deep vein thrombosis
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The present paper is based on the evaluation of published studies. Therefore, patient consent and ethical approval of the study are not required.
Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting of Trials) (2001) Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 285(15):1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huwiler-Müntener K, Jüni P, Junker C et al (2002) Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 287(21):2801–2804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen AT, Hamilton M, Mitchell SA, Phatak H, Liu X, Bird A, Tushabe D, Batson S (2015) Comparison of the novel oral anticoagulants apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban in the initial and long-term treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10(12):e0144856. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devos F, Ibrahim N, Foissac F et al (2018) Comparison of the quality of pediatric randomized controlled trials published in both nursing and medical journals: adherence to the CONSORT statement. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 15(6):447–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baulig C, Krummenauer F, Geis B et al (2018) Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts on age-related macular degeneration health care: a cross-sectional quantification of the adherence to CONSORT abstract reporting recommendations. BMJ Open 8(5):e021912. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow JTY, Turkstra TP, Yim E et al (2018) The degree of adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines for the abstracts of randomised clinical trials published in anaesthesia journals: a cross-sectional study of reporting adherence in 2010 and 2016. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2018:942–948. https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000000880Google Scholar