RCTs & trial protocols

Randomized Controlled Trials: reviewed like a reviewer would

Randomized trials are judged on reporting completeness first. Registration, primary-outcome discipline, randomization and blinding descriptions, and a flow diagram are where trials fail before anyone reads the discussion.

Start a review — $49See a full sample review
For the manuscript you're submitting · no accept/reject verdict
What the review checks

Built around CONSORT 2025.

Manuscripts that report enrolled participants and outcomes route to CONSORT; protocols that describe planned randomization route to SPIRIT 2025.
  • Item-by-item CONSORT 2025 audit: registration, protocol access, randomization and allocation concealment, blinding, sample-size rationale, outcomes as pre-specified, harms, and the participant flow diagram.
  • Primary-outcome consistency: the outcome named in the methods, the abstract and the results are cross-checked against each other and against the stated registration.
  • Statistics review: analysis population, handling of missing data, multiplicity, subgroup claims, and whether effect estimates carry confidence intervals.
  • Reference verification against PubMed and Crossref with retraction screening, and a compliance audit against the target journal's author instructions.
  • Journal formatting applied to the .docx as tracked changes, included in the $49.
The evidence

Why this matters, in numbers.

Each figure is quoted from its primary source; the bracketed number links to the reference below. Verified 2026-09-12.
69 of 81

Across 50 evaluations of 16,604 randomized trials, 69 of 81 meta-analyses favored journals that endorse CONSORT for completeness of reporting. [40]

31%

Only 45.5% of 323 published trials were adequately registered, and 31% of those showed discrepancies between registered and published primary outcomes; 82.6% of assessable discrepancies favored statistically significant results. [39]

40–89%

Poor description of interventions made 40–89% of published trial reports non-replicable, and most studies had at least one primary outcome changed, introduced or omitted. [38]

2.58 of 9

BMJ reviewers found an average of 2.58 of nine major errors deliberately inserted into a test paper; training raised this only to about 3. [18]

3.9% research

JAMA received 11,526 manuscripts in 2025 and accepted 10.4% overall and 3.9% of research manuscripts. [53]

23% sent out

JAMA sent only 23% of research manuscripts for external peer review in 2025. [53]

From Peer review statistics 2026, 89 verified statistics
What you get

One pass, $49.

Included
  • 16-section review
  • Every reference checked against PubMed and Crossref; status per reference; retraction screening on every DOI
  • Audit against the target journal's author instructions
  • Journal formatting applied to your .docx as Word tracked changes, included
Ground rules
  • No accept/reject verdict.
  • Zero Data Retention (Anthropic); never stored or used for training.
  • $49 per manuscript, no subscription. Journal Brief $2.99 per paper (first free). ESL add-on $19.99.
  • Full 16-section sample review published.
What it cannot do

It cannot detect fabricated or falsified data, manipulated images, or anything that is not visible in the manuscript text and references. It finds the manuscript-visible problems that reviewers and editors find, before they do.

Protected by Anthropic’s Zero Data Retention
Your manuscript is never stored, logged, or used for training.
FAQ

Questions, answered.

Don't see yours? Email us — we read every one.

Sources

Sources cited on this page

Every figure on this page is quoted from the primary source listed here. Verification dates are recorded per source.
  1. [1]Schroter S et al. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them?. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2008. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.080062 PMID 18840867.peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC / Crossref record) · verified 2026-09-12
  2. [2]Glasziou P et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet (London, England) 2014. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62228-x PMID 24411647.peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC / Crossref record) · verified 2026-09-12
  3. [3]Mathieu S et al. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. 2009. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1242 PMID 19724045.peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC / Crossref record) · verified 2026-09-12
  4. [4]Turner L et al. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Systematic reviews 2012. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-60 PMID 23194585.peer-reviewed article (Europe PMC / Crossref record) · verified 2026-09-12
  5. [5]Bibbins-Domingo K, Christiansen SL, Curfman G, et al. 2025 Year in Review and Vision for the Path Ahead. JAMA. Published online 13 April 2026. jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2847844journal editorial · verified 2026-09-12

Submit the version a reviewer would struggle to fault.

Upload the manuscript, name the target journal, and get the review, the reference table, the checklist audit and the formatted .docx back in minutes.

Start a review — $49Read the sample review
For the manuscript you're submitting