Adequacy of trial registration and consistency in outcome reporting in rheumatology RCTs: A meta-research study
Authors' conclusion
Despite improvements in trial registration practices, major gaps persist in outcome specification and reporting consistency in rheumatology RCTs.
Study context
- Population
- Primary reports of rheumatology RCTs published from 2009 to 20221,679 primary outcomes
- Participants
- 947 participants
- Outcome
- Adequacy of primary outcome registration (SPIRIT-based criteria: measurement, analysis metric, time points) and consistency of outcome reporting between registry and publication
Methodological detailslogistic regression
- Logistic regression
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Trials adequately describing all primary outcomes in the registry
38%
Adequately registered trials reporting primary outcomes consistently in the publication
67%
Trials meeting both criteria
25%
Further findings
Gaps and inconsistencies, and trends over time
- Most common gap in outcome description: missing participant-level analysis metric
- Most prevalent inconsistency: changes in timing of outcome assessment
- Adequate registration improved 2009–2013, then plateaued; reporting consistency showed no improvement over time
Original publication
Adequacy of trial registration and consistency in outcome reporting in rheumatology RCTs: A meta-research study. Semin Arthritis Rheum. Published 22 January 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →