Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

International Journal of Obesity volume 31, pages 1554–1559 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Background:

Despite the large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing weight loss interventions, no study has assessed the quality of reporting in these trials.

Purpose:

To assess the quality of reporting of RCTs of weight loss interventions and to identify predictors of reporting quality.

Methods:

The RCTs assessed were derived from a published systematic review of trials investigating the efficacy of weight loss interventions. For our study, two reviewers independently rated the quality of reporting in these trials, based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) Statement. We describe the quality of reporting using number (percent) of studies satisfying each of the 44 CONSORT criteria. We use generalized estimating equations (GEE) to fit a multivariable regression model to determine factors that are associated with the overall quality reporting score.

Results:

We assessed 63 RCTs, of which 25 were dietary-lifestyle trials, 22 were pharmacological trials and 16 were behavior-cognitive, exercise-lifestyle, or surgical trials. Less than half (46%) of the trials defined the primary outcome of the study; about 10% provided the description of the method of allocation concealment. Multivariable GEE results showed that the sample size, type of intervention (non-pharmacologic trials having lower scores than pharmacologic trials), and publication time relative to the CONSORT Statement publication in 1996 (publications after 1996 having higher scores) were strong predictors of the quality reporting score. Reporting a statistically significant result on the primary outcome was not significantly associated with the quality score.

Conclusion:

While the overall quality in reporting seemed to have improved since the publication of the revised CONSORT Statement in 1996, the reporting of some key methodologic aspects, such as clear description of primary outcome and method of allocation concealment, still requires improvements. Factors that are significantly associated with the overall quality reporting score can be used as surrogates in the review of protocols to enhance the quality of the final reports.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Controlling the global obesity epidemic. WHO 09/03/2003 http://www.who.int/nut/obs.htm (Date of last access: October 6, 2006).

  2. Douketis JD, Thabane L, Macie C, Williamson DF . Systematic review of long-term weight loss studies in obese adults: clinical significance and applicability to clinical practice. Int J Obes Relat Metabol Dis 2005; 10: 1153–1167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al., for the CONSORT Group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 663–694.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for obesity in adults: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139: 930–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Douketis JD, Feightner JW, Attia J, Feldman WF, with the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Periodic health examination, 1999 update: detection prevention and treatment of obesity. CMAJ 1999; 160: 513–524.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Brezden-Masley C, Dent R, Tannock IF . Quality of abstracts describing randomized trials in the proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology Meetings: guidelines for improved reporting. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 1993–1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bath FJ, Owen VE, Bath PMW . Quality of full and final publications reporting acute stroke trials. A systematic review. Stroke 1998; 29: 2203–2210.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mills E, Loke YK, Wu P, Montori VM, Perri D, Moher D et al. Determining the reporting quality of RCTs in clinical pharmacology. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 58: 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Latronico N, Botteri M, Minelli C, Zanotti C, Bertolini G, Candiani A . Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in the intensive care literature. A systematic analysis of papers published in Intensive Care Medicine over 26 years. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28: 1316–1323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, Clarke M, Scott C, Swann S et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomized trials: observational study of randomized controlled trials performed by the radiation therapy oncology group. BMJ 2004; 328: 22–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Landis JR, Koch GG . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hardin J, Hilbe J . Generalized Linear Models and Extensions. Stata Press: College Station, Texas, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kline RB . Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press: New York, NY, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lai R, Chu R, Fraumeni M, Thabane L . Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the primary treatment of brain tumors. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 1136–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chan AW, Altman DG . Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 2005; 365: 1159–1162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Soares HP, Daniels S, Kumar A, Clarke M, Scott C, Swann S et al. Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. BMJ 2004; 328: 22–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Devereaux PJ, Choi PT, El-Dika S, Bhandari M, Montori VM, Schunemann HJ et al. An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 1232–1236.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    L Thabane

  2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    L Thabane

  3. Department of Statistics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    R Chu

  4. St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    K Cuddy & J Douketis

  5. Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    J Douketis

Authors
  1. L Thabane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K Cuddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J Douketis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J Douketis.

Appendix

Appendix

Table A1 Presents CONSORT reporting criteria.

Table a1 CONSORT statement individual reporting criteria satisfied
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thabane, L., Chu, R., Cuddy, K. et al. What is the quality of reporting in weight loss intervention studies? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Int J Obes 31, 1554–1559 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803640

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803640

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links