RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The devil is in the details: Reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedic clinical trials
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.07.20.21260565
DO 10.1101/2021.07.20.21260565
A1 Robert Schulz
A1 Georg Langen
A1 Robert Prill
A1 Michael Cassel
A1 Tracey Weissgerber
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/23/2021.07.20.21260565.abstract
AB Introduction While transparent reporting of clinical trials is essential to assess the risk of bias and translate research findings into clinical practice, earlier studies have shown that deficiencies are common. This study examined current clinical trial reporting and transparent research practices in sports medicine and orthopedics.Methods The sample included clinical trials published in the top 25% of sports medicine and orthopedics journals over eight months. Two independent reviewers assessed pre-registration, open data and criteria related to scientific rigor, the study sample, and data analysis.Results The sample included 163 clinical trials from 27 journals. While the majority of trials mentioned rigor criteria, essential details were often missing. Sixty percent (confidence interval [CI] 53-68%) of trials reported sample size calculations, but only 32% (CI 25-39%) justified the expected effect size. Few trials indicated the blinding status of all main stakeholders (4%; CI 1-7%). Only 18% (CI 12-24%) included information on randomization type, method, and concealed allocation. Most trials reported participants’ sex/gender (95%; CI 92-98%) and information on inclusion and exclusion criteria (78%; CI 72-84%). Only 20% (CI 14-26%) of trials were pre-registered. No trials deposited data in open repositories.Conclusions These results will aid the sports medicine and orthopedics community in developing tailored interventions to improve reporting. While authors typically mention blinding, randomization and other factors, essential details are often missing. Greater acceptance of open science practices, like pre-registration and open data, is needed. These practices have been widely encouraged, we discuss systemic interventions that may improve clinical trial reporting.Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9648HCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study received no external funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Not applicable, because this article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data are available on the OSF and may be accessed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License at the following link: https://osf.io/q8b46/ https://osf.io/q8b46/ https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Q8B46