CONSORT quality assessment of abstracts from RCTs on maintenance treatment in AML
| Reference . | Authors . | Design . | Methods . | Results . | Conclusions . | Registration . | Funding . | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 . | 2 . | 3a . | 3b . | 3c . | 3d . | 3e . | 3f . | 4a . | 4b . | 4c . | 4d . | 4e . | 5 . | 6 . | 7 . | |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Reference . | Authors . | Design . | Methods . | Results . | Conclusions . | Registration . | Funding . | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 . | 2 . | 3a . | 3b . | 3c . | 3d . | 3e . | 3f . | 4a . | 4b . | 4c . | 4d . | 4e . | 5 . | 6 . | 7 . | |
| 18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 21 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 19 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Positive trials are shown in bold. Details of scoring are provided in Moher et al.8 0 corresponds to the absence and 1 corresponds to the presence of a potential deficiency. The following score/domain correspondence was used: 1, authors; 2, design; 3a, participants; 3b, interventions; 3c, objective; 3d, outcome; 3e, randomization; 3f, blinding (masking); 4a, numbers randomized; 4b, recruitment; 4c, numbers analyzed; 4d, outcomes; 4e, harms; 5, conclusions; 6, registration; 7, funding.