Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Interpretation, comparison, and combination of results of clinical trials are reliant on accurate and complete reporting of outcomes. This study aimed to assess the quality and variability in outcome reporting in immunosuppression trials following renal transplantation. All randomized controlled trials comparing immunosuppressive interventions in renal transplant recipients published over a 5-year period were included. Outcomes reported in these studies were extracted, along with data regarding completeness of reporting and whether a clear definition of the method used to measure the outcome was provided. A total of 4760 outcomes were identified from 182 studies. Overall, 90.3% outcomes were completely reported; the remainder had missing data that would preclude use in meta-analysis; 31.5% manuscripts did not define a primary endpoint. Efficacy outcomes were more likely to be clearly defined than safety outcomes (OR: 0.022, P

Original publication




Journal article


Clin Transplant

Publication Date





1440 - 1448


bias, clinical trials, immunosuppression, quality, renal transplant, Graft Rejection, Humans, Immunosuppressive Agents, Kidney Transplantation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design