Inadequate Reporting in Randomized Trials: A Silent Threat to Evidence Synthesis

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are central to evidence-based medicine, but their validity depends on the quality and completeness of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite the existence of guidelines such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), inadequate reporting remains a widespread issue, often impeding data extraction and synthesis. Common gaps include the type of RCT, randomization methods, group-wise sample sizes, dropout details, and primary outcome data. Poor reporting threatens the transparency, reproducibility, and utility of clinical research, ultimately compromising the reliability of systematic reviews and the clinical guidelines based on them. To address this, strict adherence to reporting standards must be enforced by journals, reviewers, and funding bodies. Researchers should be encouraged to share tabulated core trial information in public repositories. Educational efforts targeting early-career researchers and stricter accountability mechanisms are crucial. Incomplete reporting must be recognized as a serious obstacle to evidence synthesis and treated as a significant threat to the scientific enterprise.