Total | Clinician | Methodologist | Both | Other | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(N = 203) | (N = 93) | (N = 72) | (N = 17) | (N = 21) | |
To evaluate the risk of bias of the trial | (1) 2.1 ± 2.0 | (5) 1.3 ± 2.1 | (1) 2.8 ± 1.8 | (1) 3.6 ± 0.8 | (1) 2.5 ± 1.6 |
To determine if the manuscript conclusion is consistent with the results | (2) 1.9 ± 1.9 | (1) 1.7 ± 2.0 | (3) 2.1 ± 1.8 | (2) 2.4 ± 2.1 | (3) 1.9 ± 1.9 |
To evaluate the adequacy of statistical analyses | (3) 1.8 ± 1.7 | (6) 1.2 ± 1.6 | (2) 2.6 ± 1.7 | (3) 2.2 ± 1.6 | (5) 1.6 ± 1.5 |
To evaluate if the control group is appropriate | (4) 1.4 ± 1.8 | (8) 1.1 ± 1.7 | (4) 1.9 ± 1.8 | (8) 1.2 ± 1.4 | (6) 1.4 ± 2.1 |
To check if all outcomes are adequately reported | (5) 1.4 ± 2.0 | (9) 1.1 ± 2.1 | (5) 1.7 ± 1.9 | (5) 1.5 ± 1.6 | (4) 1.9 ± 1.9 |
To evaluate the relevance of the primary outcome(s) | (6) 1.3 ± 2.1 | (4) 1.3 ± 2.1 | (6) 1.5 ± 2.1 | (14) 0.6 ± 2.6 | (8) 1.1 ± 1.7 |
To search for any attempt to distort the presentation or interpretation of results | (7) 1.2 ± 2.0 | (11) 0.9 ± 2.0 | (7) 1.3 ± 1.8 | (4) 1.9 ± 2.5 | (2) 2.2 ± 2.1 |
To evaluate the reliability and validity of the outcome measures | (8) 1.1 ± 2.0 | (3) 1.4 ± 2.2 | (11) 0.9 ± 1.9 | (12) 0.7 ± 2.1 | (9) 1.0 ± 1.9 |
To evaluate the importance of the study | (9) 1.1 ± 2.4 | (2) 1.7 ± 2.4 | (14) 0.6 ± 2.5 | (17) -0.1 ± 2.0 | (13) 0.7 ± 2.0 |
To evaluate if the abstract conclusion is consistent with the results | (10) 1.0 ± 1.9 | (10) 1.0 ± 2.1 | (9) 1.2 ± 1.7 | (9) 1.2 ± 1.9 | (20) 0.0 ± 1.7 |
To evaluate if the discussion is consistent with the results | (11) 1.0 ± 1.8 | (7) 1.2 ± 1.7 | (13) 0.7 ± 1.7 | (13) 0.7 ± 1.9 | (7) 1.2 ± 2.1 |
To check if all adverse events are adequately reported | (12) 0.9 ± 1.9 | (14) 0.7 ± 2.0 | (8) 1.2 ± 1.7 | (6) 1.4 ± 1.9 | (10) 0.9 ± 2.1 |
To check if the intervention is described with enough details to allow replication | (13) 0.8 ± 1.8 | (16) 0.6 ± 1.8 | (10) 1.1 ± 1.7 | (10) 1.0 ± 1.8 | (18) 0.2 ± 1.9 |
To check that limitations are adequately reported | (14) 0.7 ± 1.7 | (17) 0.4 ± 1.8 | (12) 0.8 ± 1.6 | (7) 1.3 ± 1.7 | (11) 0.9 ± 1.6 |
To evaluate the adequacy of the selection of participants and clinical setting | (15) 0.5 ± 1.9 | (13) 0.7 ± 1.9 | (15) 0.5 ± 1.8 | (15) 0.4 ± 1.7 | (17) 0.2 ± 2.0 |
To search for any inconsistencies or errors in the manuscript | (16) 0.3 ± 2.2 | (21) 0.0 ± 2.1 | (17) 0.3 ± 2.2 | (11) 1.0 ± 2.4 | (14) 0.6 ± 2.0 |
To evaluate the novelty of the study | (17) 0.2 ± 2.4 | (12) 0.8 ± 2.5 | (20) –0.1 ± 2.0 | (21) –0.3 ± 2.1 | (24) –0.5 ± 2.7 |
To check the sample size calculation | (18) 0.2 ± 2.1 | (18) 0.4 ± 1.9 | (18) –0.1 ± 2.4 | (24) –0.5 ± 2.0 | (15) 0.5 ± 2.1 |
To check if the authors reported all important outcomes and adverse events in the abstract | (19) 0.1 ± 2.1 | (22) 0.0 ± 2.3 | (16) 0.4 ± 1.9 | (20) –0.2 ± 1.8 | (23) –0.3 ± 2.3 |
To discuss the results in relation to other studies | (20) 0.0 ± 1.9 | (19) 0.3 ± 2.0 | (19) –0.1 ± 1.6 | (30) –1.0 ± 2.1 | (19) 0.1 ± 2.0 |
To evaluate if the manuscript can be suspected of fraud | (21) –0.1 ± 2.6 | (15) 0.7 ± 2.7 | (30) –1.1 ± 2.4 | (29) –0.9 ± 1.6 | (12) 0.9 ± 2.3 |
To provide recommendations on publication | (22) –0.2 ± 2.5 | (20) 0.3 ± 2.8 | (23) –0.5 ± 2.2 | (22) –0.4 ± 2.3 | (26) –0.7 ± 2.3 |
To check if all figures and tables are consistent with the text | (23) –0.2 ± 1.7 | (23) –0.1 ± 1.7 | (21) –0.4 ± 1.6 | (19) –0.2 ± 2.0 | (21) –0.1 ± 1.6 |
To evaluate clarity of presentation | (24) –0.5 ± 1.9 | (26) –0.5 ± 2.0 | (22) –0.5 ± 1.9 | (28) –0.8 ± 1.6 | (27) –0.7 ± 1.7 |
To check if the study reported ethics review board approval | (25) –0.5 ± 2.2 | (25) –0.3 ± 2.3 | (27) –0.9 ± 2.1 | (23) –0.4 ± 2.1 | (22) –0.3 ± 2.3 |
To search for plagiarism or imitation in the paper | (26) –0.7 ± 2.3 | (24) –0.1 ± 2.4 | (33) –1.4 ± 2.2 | (32) –1.4 ± 2.0 | (16) 0.2 ± 1.9 |
To compare information recorded in the trial protocol when provided by the authors and reported in the manuscript | (27) –0.7 ± 2.3 | (27) –0.8 ± 2.2 | (24) –0.6 ± 2.5 | (18) –0.2 ± 2.2 | (30) –1.0 ± 2.1 |
To check if the items requested by the CONSORT Statement are adequately reported by authors | (28) –0.9 ± 2.3 | (29) –1.1 ± 2.2 | (26) –0.8 ± 2.2 | (16) 0.1 ± 2.6 | (25) –0.5 ± 2.6 |
To check if the authors referenced all important studies | (29) –1.1 ± 1.7 | (28) –1.1 ± 1.8 | (25) –0.8 ± 1.7 | (33) –1.6 ± 1.6 | (33) –1.5 ± 1.2 |
To evaluate whether figures and tables can be understood without having to refer the text | (30) –1.1 ± 1.9 | (30) –1.1 ± 1.9 | (31) –1.2 ± 1.8 | (26) –0.7 ± 2.0 | (29) –1.0 ± 2.2 |
To check if items requested by the CONSORT extensions are adequately reported when appropriate | (31) –1.2 ± 1.9 | (32) –1.5 ± 2.0 | (29) –1.1 ± 1.8 | (25) –0.7 ± 1.6 | (28) –0.8 ± 2.0 |
To compare information recorded on a clinical trials register such as ClinicalTrials.gov and reported in the manuscript | (32) –1.3 ± 2.1 | (31) –1.5 ± 2.1 | (28) –1.0 ± 2.3 | (31) –1.4 ± 1.7 | (32) –1.5 ± 2.3 |
To read the journals’ recommendations to reviewers | (33) –1.4 ± 2.0 | (33) –1.7 ± 1.9 | (32) –1.2 ± 1.7 | (27) –0.8 ± 2.5 | (31) –1.1 ± 2.6 |
To evaluate all appendices when available | (34) –2.3 ± 1.6 | (34) –2.2 ± 1.8 | (34) –2.5 ± 1.4 | (34) –1.8 ± 1.8 | (34) –2.8 ± 1.1 |
To evaluate the adequacy of the language | (35) –2.9 ± 1.7 | (35) –2.7 ± 1.9 | (35) –3.0 ± 1.5 | (35) –3.1 ± 1.3 | (35) –3.4 ± 1.4 |
To evaluate if authors respect the requested format for references | (36) –4.0 ± 1.4 | (36) –3.8 ± 1.6 | (36) –4.0 ± 1.3 | (36) –4.4 ± 1.2 | (36) –4.0 ± 1.4 |