Literature DB >> 22036893

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

David Moher1, Sally Hopewell, Kenneth F Schulz, Victor Montori, Peter C Gøtzsche, P J Devereaux, Diana Elbourne, Matthias Egger, Douglas G Altman.   

Abstract

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
Copyright © 2010 Moher et al/Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22036893     DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.10.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Surg        ISSN: 1743-9159            Impact factor:   6.071


  486 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive assessment in the Dutch breast cancer screening program versus usual care: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Johanna M Timmers; Johanna A Damen; Ruud M Pijnappel; André L Verbeek; Gerard J den Heeten; Eddy M Adang; Mireille J Broeders
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2014-07-31

Review 2.  What can we learn from oncology surgical trials?

Authors:  Serge Evrard; Pippa McKelvie-Sebileau; Cornelis van de Velde; Bernard Nordlinger; Graeme Poston
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  Local infiltration analgesia versus continuous interscalene brachial plexus block for shoulder replacement pain: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Karen T Bjørnholdt; Jan M Jensen; Thomas F Bendtsen; Kjeld Søballe; Lone Nikolajsen
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-08-15

4.  Who is in this study, anyway? Guidelines for a useful Table 1.

Authors:  Eleanor Hayes-Larson; Katrina L Kezios; Stephen J Mooney; Gina Lovasi
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Health Promotion and Preventive Care Intervention for Older Community-Dwelling People: Long-Term Effects of a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) within the LUCAS Cohort.

Authors:  L Neumann; U Dapp; W von Renteln-Kruse; C E Minder
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 4.075

6.  Daidzein and genistein have differential effects in decreasing whole body bone mineral density but had no effect on hip and spine density in premenopausal women: A 2-year randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Authors:  Fatima Nayeem; Nai-Wei Chen; Manubai Nagamani; Karl E Anderson; Lee-Jane W Lu
Journal:  Nutr Res       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 3.315

7.  Novel effects of phytoestrogenic soy isoflavones on serum calcium and chloride in premenopausal women: A 2-year double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

Authors:  Lee-Jane W Lu; Nai-Wei Chen; Fatima Nayeem; V-M Sadagopa Ramanujam; Yong-Fang Kuo; Donald G Brunder; Manubai Nagamani; Karl E Anderson
Journal:  Clin Nutr       Date:  2017-11-11       Impact factor: 7.324

8.  Effect of whole body vibration training on bone mineral density and bone quality in adolescents with Down syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  A Matute-Llorente; A González-Agüero; A Gómez-Cabello; H Olmedillas; G Vicente-Rodríguez; J A Casajús
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Effect of whole-body vibration training on bone mass in adolescents with and without Down syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  A Matute-Llorente; A González-Agüero; A Gómez-Cabello; J Tous-Fajardo; G Vicente-Rodríguez; J A Casajús
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 4.507

10.  Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Jun Seok Park; Hyun Kang; Soo Yeun Park; Hye Jin Kim; In Teak Woo; In-Kyu Park; Gyu-Seog Choi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-11-19       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.