The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Top Cited Papers
- 17 April 2001
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 134 (8) , 663-694
- https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012
Abstract
Overwhelming evidence now indicates that the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) is less than optimal. Recent methodologic analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which boast the elimination of systematic error as their primary hallmark. Systematic error in RCTs reflects poor science, and poor science threatens proper ethical standards. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. 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 adopted the CONSORT statement. The CONSORT statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs by providing guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of their trials. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For most items, at least one published example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies are provided. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT statement, this explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated Web site (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomized trials. Throughout the text, terms marked with an asterisk are defined at end of text.Keywords
This publication has 89 references indexed in Scilit:
- How Well Are Randomized Controlled Trials Reported in the Dermatology Literature?Archives of Dermatology, 2000
- Randomized clinical trials in Hepatology: Predictors of qualityHepatology, 1999
- What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trialsBMJ, 1999
- A qualitative assessment of randomized controlled trials in otolaryngology.The Journal of Laryngology & Otology, 1998
- Randomised trials, human nature, and reporting guidelinesThe Lancet, 1996
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA, 1995
- Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trialsThe Lancet, 1990
- MISUSE OF STATISTICAL METHODS IN THE AUSTRALASIAN SURGICAL LITERATUREAnz Journal of Surgery, 1982
- Statistics in medical journalsStatistics in Medicine, 1982
- Misuse of statistical methods: critical assessment of articles in BMJ from January to March 1976.BMJ, 1977