Evidence mapPaperPMID 40391306Full record

ArticleJournal of caring sciences2025

Is CONSORT a Risk of Bias Tool for Experimental Studies: A Big Misunderstanding.

Ehsan Sarbazi, Homayoun Sadeghi-Bazargani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of caring sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ehsan SarbaziRoad Traffic Injury Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8190-9942
Homayoun Sadeghi-BazarganiDepartment of Statistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Health, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0396-8709

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In order to avoid bias in systematic reviews (SRs), the accuracy in selection of risk of bias (RoB) assessment tools is essential to obtain highest level of evidence for evidence-based decision making in health care. We aimed to review how 'CONSORT statement', as a reporting quality of randomized controlled trials, has been misused in recent SRs as a ROB tool. Methods: A mini-review was performed in international databases including PubMed, Google Scholar and hand-searches for published and unpublished literature from 2000 to 2021 and written in English. The following keywords: risk of bias, "Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials", CONSORT, "systematic review" were used. Citations were screened and those meeting our inclusion criteria were retained. Results: A total of 11 SRs were identified that misused CONSORT as a ROB tool, four of which were used only CONSORT as ROB tool. Different authentic magazines from various countries were recognized. Conclusion: The CONSORT statement aims to increase clarity and consistency of transparency of reporting in randomized controlled trials. It is quite essential to draw the attention of SR researchers, journal editors/reviewers as well as the reading audience to the fact that CONSORT statement CONSORT statement is not a ROB tool.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsCONSORTEpidemiologic methodsQuality of reportingSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID40391306
PMCPMC12085767

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.