Characteristics of Included Meta-Analyses.

<p>Characteristics of Included Meta-Analyses.</p

Flow Diagram of Selection of Primary Studies and Meta-analyses that Evaluated the Diagnostic Accuracy of Depression Screening Tools.

<p>Flow Diagram of Selection of Primary Studies and Meta-analyses that Evaluated the Diagnostic Accuracy of Depression Screening Tools.</p

Article Selection.

<p>Article Selection.</p

Registration of Published RCTs and Pre-Enrolment Registration Requirement per ICMJE Requirements.

<p>Registration of Published RCTs and Pre-Enrolment Registration Requirement per ICMJE Requirements.</p

Transparency of Outcome Reporting and Trial Registration of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in the <i>Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology</i>

<div><p>Background</p><p>Confidence that randomized controlled trial (RCT) results accurately reflect intervention effectiveness depends on proper trial conduct and the accuracy and completeness of published trial reports. The <i>Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology</i> (JCCP) is the primary trials journal amongst American Psychological Association (APA) journals. The objectives of this study were to review RCTs recently published in JCCP to evaluate (1) adequacy of primary outcome analysis definitions; (2) registration status; and, (3) among registered trials, adequacy of outcome registrations. Additionally, we compared results from JCCP to findings from a recent study of top psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Eligible RCTs were published in JCCP in 2013–2014. For each RCT, two investigators independently extracted data on (1) adequacy of outcome analysis definitions in the published report, (2) whether the RCT was registered prior to enrolling patients, and (3) adequacy of outcome registration.</p><p>Results</p><p>Of 70 RCTs reviewed, 12 (17.1%) adequately defined primary or secondary outcome analyses, whereas 58 (82.3%) had multiple primary outcome analyses without statistical adjustment or undefined outcome analyses. There were 39 (55.7%) registered trials. Only two trials registered prior to patient enrollment with a single primary outcome variable and time point of assessment. However, in one of the two trials, registered and published outcomes were discrepant. No studies were adequately registered as per Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials guidelines. Compared to psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals, the proportion of published trials with adequate outcome analysis declarations was significantly lower in JCCP (17.1% versus 32.9%; <i>p</i> = 0.029). The proportion of registered trials in JCCP (55.7%) was comparable to behavioral medicine journals (52.6%; p = 0.709).</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The quality of published outcome analysis definitions and trial registrations in JCCP is suboptimal. Greater attention to proper trial registration and outcome analysis definition in published reports is needed.</p></div

Comparing Outcome Declaration and Registration of Published RCTs in JCCP and Non-APA Psychosomatic and Behavioral Medicine Journals.

<p>Comparing Outcome Declaration and Registration of Published RCTs in JCCP and Non-APA Psychosomatic and Behavioral Medicine Journals.</p

Comparison of sexual activity rates between women with systemic sclerosis and women from a UK general population sample, stratified by age and marital status.

<p>Comparison of sexual activity rates between women with systemic sclerosis and women from a UK general population sample, stratified by age and marital status.</p

Outcome Analysis Declaration in Published Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials in JCCP.

<p>Outcome Analysis Declaration in Published Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials in JCCP.</p

Comparison of sexual impairment rates between women with systemic sclerosis and women from a UK general population sample, stratified by age and marital status.

<p>Comparison of sexual impairment rates between women with systemic sclerosis and women from a UK general population sample, stratified by age and marital status.</p

Comparison of FSFI domain scores between sexually active women with systemic sclerosis Patients and sexually active women from a UK general population sample; unadjusted and adjusted for total FSFI score.

<p>(CSRG Sample: N = 296; UK Sample: N = 956).</p