CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. To encourage dissemination of the CONSORT 2010 Statement, this article is freely accessible on www.ijph.it

Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'

BACKGROUND: The CONSORT Statement provides recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials. We assessed the extent to which leading medical journals that publish reports of randomized trials incorporate the CONSORT recommendations into their journal and editorial processes. METHODS: This article reports on two observational studies. Study 1: We examined the online version of 'Instructions to Authors' for 165 high impact factor medical journals and extracted all text mentioning the CONSORT Statement or CONSORT extension papers. Any mention of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or clinical trial registration were also sought and extracted. Study 2: We surveyed the editor-in-chief, or editorial office, for each of the 165 journals about their journal's endorsement of CONSORT recommendations and its incorporation into their editorial and peer-review processes. RESULTS: Study 1: Thirty-eight percent (62/165) of journals mentioned the CONSORT Statement in their online 'Instructions to Authors'; of these 37% (23/62) stated this was a requirement, 63% (39/62) were less clear in their recommendations. Very few journals mentioned the CONSORT extension papers. Journals that referred to CONSORT were more likely to refer to ICMJE guidelines (RR 2.16; 95% CI 1.51 to 3.08) and clinical trial registration (RR 3.67; 95% CI 2.36 to 5.71) than those journals which did not.Study 2: Thirty-nine percent (64/165) of journals responded to the on-line survey, the majority were journal editors. Eighty-eight percent (50/57) of journals recommended authors comply with the CONSORT Statement; 62% (35/56) said they would require this. Forty-one percent (22/53) reported incorporating CONSORT into their peer-review process and 47% (25/53) into their editorial process. Eighty-one percent (47/58) reported including CONSORT in their 'Instructions to Authors' although there was some inconsistency when cross checking information on the journal's website. Sixty-nine percent (31/45) of journals recommended authors comply with the CONSORT extension for cluster trials, 60% (27/45) for harms and 42% (19/45) for non-inferiority and equivalence trials. Few journals mentioned these extensions in their 'Instructions to Authors'. CONCLUSION: Journals should be more explicit in their recommendations and expectations of authors regarding the CONSORT Statement and related CONSORT extensions papers

Resources for authors of reports of randomized trials: harnessing the wisdom of authors, editors, and readers

The CONSORT Statement was developed to help authors improve the quality of reporting randomized trials. To augment the statement we published the CONSORT explanation and elaboration paper which included at least one example of good reporting for each CONSORT checklist item. We are developing a comprehensive database of examples of good reporting for each checklist item to take advantage of the breadth and variety of trials familiar to authors and readers globally. We invite authors, editors, and readers worldwide to nominate examples of well reported items for the database

The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials

To comprehend the results of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through total 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 use of a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented here incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement. The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting this 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 of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of a trial (enrolment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly shows the number of participants, for each intervention group, included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have done an intention-to-treat analysis. In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results

A simplified search strategy for identifying randomised controlled trials for systematic reviews of health care interventions : a comparison with more exhaustive strategies

Background It is generally believed that exhaustive searches of bibliographic databases are needed for systematic reviews of health care interventions. The CENTRAL database of controlled trials (RCTs) has been built up by exhaustive searching. The CONSORT statement aims to encourage better reporting, and hence indexing, of RCTs. Our aim was to assess whether developments in the CENTRAL database, and the CONSORT statement, mean that a simplified RCT search strategy for identifying RCTs now suffices for systematic reviews of health care interventions. Methods RCTs used in the Cochrane reviews were identified. A brief RCT search strategy (BRSS), consisting of a search of CENTRAL, and then for variants of the word random across all fields (random$.af.) in MEDLINE and EMBASE, was devised and run. Any trials included in the meta-analyses, but missed by the BRSS, were identified. The meta-analyses were then re-run, with and without the missed RCTs, and the differences quantified. The proportion of trials with variants of the word random in the title or abstract was calculated for each year. The number of RCTs retrieved by searching with "random$.af." was compared to the highly sensitive search strategy (HSSS). Results The BRSS had a sensitivity of 94%. It found all journal RCTs in 47 of the 57 reviews. The missing RCTs made some significant differences to a small proportion of the total outcomes in only five reviews, but no important differences in conclusions resulted. In the post-CONSORT years, 1997–2003, the percentage of RCTs with random in the title or abstract was 85%, a mean increase of 17% compared to the seven years pre-CONSORT (95% CI, 8.3% to 25.9%). The search using random$.af. reduced the MEDLINE retrieval by 84%, compared to the HSSS, thereby reducing the workload of checking retrievals. Conclusion A brief RCT search strategy is now sufficient to locate RCTs for systematic reviews in most cases. Exhaustive searching is no longer cost-effective, because in effect it has already been done for CENTRAL

Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Hodgkin Lymphoma in Biomedical Journals

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the best tool to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical interventions. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was introduced in 1996 to improve reporting of RCTs. We aimed to determine the extent of ambiguity and reporting quality as assessed by adherence to the CONSORT statement in published reports of RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma from 1966 through 2002. Methods: We analyzed 242 published full-text reports of RCTs in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Quality of reporting was assessed using a 14-item questionnaire based on the CONSORT checklist. Reporting was studied in two pre-CONSORT periods (1966-1988 and 1989-1995) and one post-CONSORT period (1996-2002). Results: Only six of the 14 items were addressed in 75% or more of the studies in all three time periods. Most items that are necessary to assess the methodologic quality of a study were reported by fewer than 20% of the studies. Improvements over time were seen for some items, including the description of statistics methods used, reporting of primary research outcomes, performance of power calculations, method of randomization and concealment allocation, and having performed intention-to-treat analysis. Conclusions: Despite recent improvements, reporting levels of CONSORT items in RCTs involving patients with Hodgkin lymphoma remain unsatisfactory. Further concerted action by journal editors, learned societies, and medical schools is necessary to make authors even more aware of the need to improve the reporting RCTs in medical journals to allow assessment of validity of published clinical researc

Taking advantage of unexpected WebCONSORT results

To estimate treatment effects, trials are initiated by randomising patients to the interventions under study and finish by comparing patient evolution. In order to improve the trial report, the CONSORT statement provides authors and peer reviewers with a guide of the essential items that would allow research replication. Additionally, WebCONSORT aims to facilitate author reporting by providing the items from the different CONSORT extensions that are relevant to the trial being reported. WebCONSORT has been estimated to improve the proportion of reported items by 0.04 (95% CI, –0.02 to 0.10), interpreted as “no important difference”, in accordance with the scheduled desired scenario of a 0.15 effect size improvement. However, in a non-scheduled analysis, it was found that, despite clear instructions, around a third of manuscripts selected for trials by the editorial staff were not actually randomised trials. We argue that surprises benefit science, and that further research should be conducted in order to improve the performance of editorial staff.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Scientific communication (XIX). Basic knowledge to read (and write) a scientific paper (6): checklists of experimental studies

[EN]: Clinical trials are considered the gold standard in therapeutic interventions and the key factor in these studies is randomization. The germ of these lists guide comes from the standards applied to randomized clinical trial, the gold standard of biomedical publication, and it needs to be described in detail, accurately and transparently, both the design, implementation, analysis and results. However, the information provided in the publications is often inadequate or inaccurate, and these deficiencies motivated in 1996 the development of the CONSORT statement. We are in the third generation of the CONSORT statement and we review the 25 items that are considered critical and that should be included in any report of a randomized clinical trial. Nonrandomized intervention studies are needed when there are reasons that prevent the realization of a randomized clinical trial, but the TREND checklist should be used to communicate transparently the results. In this article we also review the 22 items of the TREND statement with a brief description of each one.[ES]: El ensayo clínico es el diseño que se considera el «patrón oro» en intervenciones terapéuticas, y el factor clave es la aleatorización. El germen de estas listas guía procede de los estándares aplicados al ensayo clínico aleatorizado, «patrón oro» de la publicación biomédica, y es preciso que se describan detalladamente, con exactitud y transparencia, su diseño, ejecución, análisis y resultados. Sin embargo, la información facilitada en las publicaciones es muchas veces insuficiente o inexacta, carencias que motivaron el desarrollo de la declaración CONSORT en 1996. Nos encontramos en la tercera generación de la declaración CONSORT y revisamos los 25 ítems considerados críticos que, por tanto, deberían incluirse en todo informe de un ensayo clínico aleatorizado. Cuando existen razones que impidan la realización de un ensayo clínico aleatorizado es necesario efectuar estudios de intervención no aleatorizados, pero para comunicar con transparencia los resultados obtenidos en ellos debe emplearse la lista de comprobación TREND. En este artículo también revisamos los 22 ítems de la declaración TREND con una breve descripción de cada uno.Peer Reviewe

Description of complex interventions: analysis of changes in reporting in randomised trials since 2002

BACKGROUND: Inadequate description of non-pharmacological complex interventions in trial publications means that they cannot be replicated or assessed for generalisability. There are published guidelines on how to describe an intervention, such as those from the CONSORT Group. However, there have been few evaluations of whether intervention reporting is improving. METHODS: We aimed to assess whether descriptions of multicomponent, non-pharmacological interventions evaluated in randomised trials are improving. To do so, we chose trials of educational and psychotherapeutic interventions to promote adherence to therapy, and compared those published between 2002 and 2007 (Time-1) with those between 2010 and 2015 (Time-2). These time periods were chosen to concord with the publication in 2008 of the CONSORT extension statement of reporting guidelines for non-pharmacological treatment which included items on intervention description. We assessed 19 items, based on the CONSORT Statement and the more recent Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist (TIDieR). Two reviewers independently extracted data. We created a quality score of the eight items we considered key information for replication and assessment of generalisability (setting, provider, recipient, comparator, intervention intensity, how it was conducted, existence of a manual or protocol, and detail of whether there was an assessment of fidelity). Score per item was '1' if reported adequately and '0' if not. RESULTS: Of the eligible trials, 42 were published in Time-1 and 134 published in Time-2. The trials included were published in 112 peer-reviewed journals, 52 of these journals currently require authors to follow the CONSORT Statements, while only one recommended adherence to the TIDieR. Most items of CONSORT and TIDieR were reported by more than half of the trials at both time points. Few trials reported fidelity. A large proportion of the trials did not report the existence of a manual or protocol, or what the comparator group received. We found no statistically significant improvement in the eight-item quality score (Time-1: mean 5.71 (standard deviation (SD) 1.09), Time-2: 5.87 (SD 1.28), p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: We found no overall evidence that reporting the specifics of multicomponent, non-pharmacological interventions is improving. Details to replicate interventions remain lacking, impairing best implementation or meaningful further research. Editorial endorsement of reporting checklists needs to be more extensive

Protocol for a scoping review to support development of a CONSORT extension for randomised controlled trials using cohorts and routinely collected health data.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data, including registries, electronic health records and administrative databases, are increasingly used in healthcare intervention research. The development of an extension of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement for RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data is being undertaken with the goal of improving reporting quality by setting standards early in the process of uptake of these designs. To develop this extension to the CONSORT statement, a scoping review will be conducted to identify potential modifications or clarifications of existing reporting guideline items, as well as additional items needed for reporting RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In separate searches, we will seek publications on methods or reporting or that describe protocols or results from RCTs using cohorts, registries, electronic health records and administrative databases. Data sources will include Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. For each of the four main types of RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data, separately, two investigators will independently review included publications to extract potential checklist items. A potential item will either modify an existing CONSORT 2010, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology or REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data item or will be proposed as a new item. Additionally, we will identify examples of good reporting in RCTs using cohorts and routinely collected health data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed scoping review will help guide the development of the CONSORT extension statement for RCTs conducted using cohorts and routinely collected health data