Literature DB >> 16791967

The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials 2001.

David Moher1, Kenneth F Schulz, Douglas Altman.   

Abstract

To comprehend the result of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this article incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticism of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Comment. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage or participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from 4 stages of a trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, according to each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting or an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16791967     DOI: 10.1016/j.explore.2004.11.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Explore (NY)        ISSN: 1550-8307            Impact factor:   1.775


  54 in total

1.  How usual is usual care in pragmatic intervention studies in primary care? An overview of recent trials.

Authors:  Antonia F H Smelt; Gerda M van der Weele; Jeanet W Blom; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Willem J J Assendelft
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Reporting practices of dropouts in psychological research using a wait-list control: current state and suggestions for improvement.

Authors:  Josh M Cisler; Aaron C Barnes; Donald Farnsworth; Sarah K Sifers
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.035

Review 3.  Patellar non-eversion in primary TKA reduces the complication rate.

Authors:  Guangpu Yang; Wenfa Huang; Weixin Xie; Zhipeng Liu; Meimei Zheng; Yuxing Hu; Jing Tian
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 4.  Transanal Tube for the Prevention of Anastomotic Leakage After Rectal Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Wen-Tao Zhao; Ning-Ning Li; Dan He; Jin-Yan Feng
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 5.  Is smaller necessarily better? A systematic review comparing the effects of minilaparoscopic and conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy on patient outcomes.

Authors:  Rory McCloy; Delia Randall; Stephan A Schug; Henrik Kehlet; Christian Simanski; Francis Bonnet; Frederic Camu; Barrie Fischer; Girish Joshi; Narinder Rawal; Edmund A M Neugebauer
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2008-09-20       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Parenting enhancement, interpersonal psychotherapy to reduce depression in low-income mothers of infants and toddlers: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Linda S Beeber; Todd A Schwartz; Diane Holditch-Davis; Regina Canuso; Virginia Lewis; Helen Wilde Hall
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.381

Review 7.  Changes in clinical trials methodology over time: a systematic review of six decades of research in psychopharmacology.

Authors:  André R Brunoni; Laura Tadini; Felipe Fregni
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-03-03       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study.

Authors:  Britta Tendal; Julian P T Higgins; Peter Jüni; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Sven Trelle; Eveline Nüesch; Simon Wandel; Anders W Jørgensen; Katarina Gesser; Søren Ilsøe-Kristensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-08-13

9.  Ethical Considerations for Acupuncture and Chinese Herbal Medicine Clinical Trials: A Cross-cultural Perspective.

Authors:  Christopher Zaslawski
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2008-08-21       Impact factor: 2.629

10.  Rationale and design of the participant, investigator, observer, and data-analyst-blinded randomized AGENDA trial on associations between gene-polymorphisms, endophenotypes for depression and antidepressive intervention: the effect of escitalopram versus placebo on the combined dexamethasone-corticotrophine releasing hormone test and other potential endophenotypes in healthy first-degree relatives of persons with depression.

Authors:  Ulla Knorr; Maj Vinberg; Marianne Klose; Ulla Feldt-Rasmussen; Linda Hilsted; Anders Gade; Eva Haastrup; Olaf Paulson; Jørn Wetterslev; Christian Gluud; Ulrik Gether; Lars Kessing
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-08-11       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.