Key result
Systematic reviews assess demographic baseline reporting almost universally but evaluate socioeconomic factors in just 54%.
Why the study?
Reporting of baseline characteristics in randomised controlled trials is necessary to provide a clear and complete picture of the participants studied, but the quality of such reporting has not been comprehensively mapped at the review level.
Systematic Review (n=139)
While demographic characteristics are frequently reported in RCTs, there is a need for improved reporting and methodological research regarding socioeconomic characteristics.
Captured external expert commentary on this paper, strongest first. Original sources are linked where available.
“It is not difficult to find examples of trials that do not say much about who is in the trial beyond stating that participants met the clinical eligibility criteria. Buttery and colleagues for example reported that of the 24 trials in their sample, only 12 reported ethnicity and only four reported a measure of socioeconomic status. Of those not reporting ethnicity, none reported the lack of these data as a limitation and only one of the 21 trials not reporting socioeconomic status did the same.”
Socioeconomic baseline reporting lags demographic assessment in RCT reviews; extends need for methodological standards to enhance equity and generalizability.
Background Reporting of baseline characteristics in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is necessary to provide a clear and complete picture of the participants studied. The aim of this review was to map existing review-level evidence examining the quality of reporting of participant characteristics in any element of trials (encompassing reporting of baseline characteristics, their utilisation in statistical analyses and in assessment of generalisability of results). Methods This scoping review utilises Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. The searches were conducted in six electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Science Citation Index Expanded, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses) and included systematic reviews published in 2015–2025. We focused on baseline characteristics listed in the INCLUDE, PROGRESS-PLUS and PRO-EDI frameworks, or similar characteristics not specified in these frameworks. Results A total of 9634 records were screened, and 139 reviews (including 123 full-text papers) from a wide range of clinical areas were included. Reviews mainly focused on assessing the frequency of reporting baseline characteristics (118/123, 96%). Less attention was given to how these were measured or collected (76/123, 62%). The frequency of reporting demographic characteristics, in particular, sex/gender and race/ethnicity, was assessed more often (122/123, 99%) than socioeconomic characteristics (e.g. employment, residential status, income), reported in 66/123 (54%) reviews. The utilisation of baseline participant characteristics in statistical analyses (62/123, 50%) and generalisability of results assessment (19/123, 15%) was less frequently investigated. Conclusions There is a substantial body of review-level evidence focusing on the frequency of reporting participant demographic characteristics in RCTs. Further methodological research is required for socioeconomic characteristics, both how these are defined and utilised to inform future practice. Trial registration The review protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KZPBE ).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yakimova et al. (2026) conducted a systematic review in Reporting of baseline characteristics in randomised controlled trials (n=139). Reporting of baseline characteristics was evaluated on Frequency of reporting baseline characteristics. Among 139 included reviews, 96% assessed the frequency of reporting baseline characteristics, with demographic characteristics evaluated more often (99%) than socioeconomic characteristics (54%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: