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

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

To comprehend the results 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 criticisms 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 of 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 of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial's conduct and to assess the validity of its results

Evaluation of geospatial methods to generate subnational HIV prevalence estimates for local level planning.

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence of substantial subnational variation in the HIV epidemic. However, robust spatial HIV data are often only available at high levels of geographic aggregation and not at the finer resolution needed for decision making. Therefore, spatial analysis methods that leverage available data to provide local estimates of HIV prevalence may be useful. Such methods exist but have not been formally compared when applied to HIV. DESIGN/METHODS: Six candidate methods - including those used by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS to generate maps and a Bayesian geostatistical approach applied to other diseases - were used to generate maps and subnational estimates of HIV prevalence across three countries using cluster level data from household surveys. Two approaches were used to assess the accuracy of predictions: internal validation, whereby a proportion of input data is held back (test dataset) to challenge predictions; and comparison with location-specific data from household surveys in earlier years. RESULTS: Each of the methods can generate usefully accurate predictions of prevalence at unsampled locations, with the magnitude of the error in predictions similar across approaches. However, the Bayesian geostatistical approach consistently gave marginally the strongest statistical performance across countries and validation procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Available methods may be able to furnish estimates of HIV prevalence at finer spatial scales than the data currently allow. The subnational variation revealed can be integrated into planning to ensure responsiveness to the spatial features of the epidemic. The Bayesian geostatistical approach is a promising strategy for integrating HIV data to generate robust local estimates

Consort 2010 statement : extension to cluster randomised trials

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Escitalopram—translating molecular properties into clinical benefit: reviewing the evidence in major depression

The majority of currently marketed drugs contain a mixture of enantiomers; however, recent evidence suggests that individual enantiomers can have pharmacological properties that differ importantly from enantiomer mixtures. Escitalopram, the S-enantiomer of citalopram, displays markedly different pharmacological activity to the R-enantiomer. This review aims to evaluate whether these differences confer any significant clinical advantage for escitalopram over either citalopram or other frequently used antidepressants. Searches were conducted using PubMed and EMBASE (up to January 2009). Abstracts of the retrieved studies were reviewed independently by both authors for inclusion. Only those studies relating to depression or major depressive disorder were included. The search identified over 250 citations, of which 21 studies and 18 pooled or meta-analyses studies were deemed suitable for inclusion. These studies reveal that escitalopram has some efficacy advantage over citalopram and paroxetine, but no consistent advantage over other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Escitalopram has at least comparable efficacy to available serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, venlafaxine XR and duloxetine, and may offer some tolerability advantages over these agents. This review suggests that the mechanistic advantages of escitalopram over citalopram translate into clinical efficacy advantages. Escitalopram may have a favourable benefit-risk ratio compared with citalopram and possibly with several other antidepressant agents