The most under-reported items were concealment of allocation , blinding of patients and outcome assessors , intention to treat and validation of outcomes .
BACKGROUND In the process of conducting a systematic review on interventions for skin lesions due to neuritis in leprosy , we assessed several primary papers with respect to the quality of reporting and methods used in the studies .
Awareness of what constitutes weak points in previously conducted studies may be used to improve the planning , conducting and reporting of future clinical trials .
AIMS To assess the quality of reporting and of methodology  in studies of interventions for skin lesions due to neuritis in leprosy .
Quality of randomized controlled trials reporting in the primary treatment of brain tumors.
PURPOSE To assess the reporting quality of r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs  ) in the primary treatment of brain tumors and to identify significant predictors of quality . PATIENTS AND METHODS Two investigators search ed MEDLINE , EMBASE , and bibliographies of retrieved articles for RCTs in the primary treatment of brain tumors published between January 1990 and December 2004 . We assessed the quality of overall reporting and key method ologic factors reporting ( allocation concealment , blinding , and intention to treat [ ITT ] ) .  Two investigators also rated articles independently using items from the revised Consoli date d St and ards of Reporting Trials statement . A generalized estimated equation was used to generate regression models that identified significant factors associated with quality of reporting . RESULTS We retrieved 74 relevant RCTs that r and omly assigned 14,498 brain tumor patients . The quality of overall reporting has improved during the last 15 years , but eight of the 15 method ologic items were reported in less than 50 % of trials . In the appraisal of the reporting quality of key method ologies , allocation concealment , blinding , and adherence to the ITT principle were reported in less than 30 % of articles . Multivariable regression models revealed that an impact factor more than 1.66 , publication after 1995 , and sample size more than 280 were significant factors associated with better overall reporting , whereas complete industrial funding , impact factors more than 2.64 , and positive primary outcomes were predictors of higher ratings of the three most important method ologic qualities . CONCLUSION Despite improvement in general reporting quality , key method ologies that safeguard against biases may still benefit from better description . Significant factors associated with better reporting may act as surrogates for other characteristics
The most under-reported items were concealment of allocation , blinding of patients and outcome assessors , intention to treat and validation of outcomes .
BACKGROUND In the process of conducting a systematic review on interventions for skin lesions due to neuritis in leprosy , we assessed several primary papers with respect to the quality of reporting and methods used in the studies .
Awareness of what constitutes weak points in previously conducted studies may be used to improve the planning , conducting and reporting of future clinical trials .
AIMS To assess the quality of reporting and of methodology  in studies of interventions for skin lesions due to neuritis in leprosy .