Reviewing the reviewers: the quality of reporting in three secondary journals

Background: Secondary journals such as ACP journal Club (ACP), Journal Watc h (JW) and Internal Medicine Alert (IMA) have enormous potential to help cl inicians remain up to date with medical knowledge. However, for clinicians to evaluate the validity and applicability of new findings, they need infor mation on the study design, methodology and results. Methods: Beginning with the first issue in March 1997, we selected 50 conse cutive summaries of studies addressing therapy or prevention and internal m edicine content from each of the ACP, JW and IMA. We evaluated the summarie s for completeness of reporting key aspects of study design, methodology an d results. Results: All of the summaries in ACP reported study design, as compared wit h 72% of the summaries in JW and IMA (p < 0.001). In summaries of randomize d controlled trials the 3 secondary journals were similar in reporting conc ealment of patient allocation (none reported this), blinding status of part icipants (ACP 62%, JW 70% and IMA 70% [p = 0.7]), blinding status of health care providers (ACP 12%, JW 4% and IMA 4% [p = 0.4]) and blinding status o f judicial assessors of outcomes (ACP 4%, JW 4% and IMA 0% [p = 0.4]). ACP was the only one to report whether investigators conducted an intention-to- treat analysis (in 38% of summaries [p < 0.001]), and it was more likely th an the other 2 journals to report the precision of the treatment effect (as a p value or 95% confidence interval) (ACP 100%, JW 0% and IMA 55% [p < 0. 001]). Interpretation: Although ACP provided more information on study design, met hodology and results, all 3 secondary journals often omitted important info rmation. More complete reporting is necessary for secondary journals to ful fill their potential to help clinicians evaluate the medical literature.