Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:26:50 BST CiteULike: hpiwowar's consort http://www.citeulike.org/user/hpiwowar/tag/consort CiteULike.org en-gb Copyright © 2004-2008 citeulike.org http://www.citeulike.org/user/hpiwowar/article/2782508 <i>The Medical journal of Australia, Vol. 185, No. 5. (4 September 2006), pp. 263-267.</i><br /><br />OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the adoption of the CONSORT checklist is associated with improvement in the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and reference lists of included studies and of experts were searched to identify eligible studies published between 1996 and 2005. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were eligible if they (a) compared CONSORT-adopting and non-adopting journals after the publication of CONSORT, (b) compared CONSORT adopters before and after publication of CONSORT, or (c) a combination of (a) and (b). Outcomes examined included reports for any of the 22 items on the CONSORT checklist or overall trial quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: 1128 studies were retrieved, of which 248 were considered possibly relevant. Eight studies were included in the review. CONSORT adopters had significantly better reporting of the method of sequence generation (risk ratio [RR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.19-2.33), allocation concealment (RR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.37-2.00) and overall number of CONSORT items than non-adopters (standardised mean difference, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.46-1.19). CONSORT adoption had less effect on reporting of participant flow (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.89-1.46) and blinding of participants (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.84-1.43) or data analysts (RR, 5.44; 95% CI, 0.73-36.87). In studies examining CONSORT-adopting journals before and after the publication of CONSORT, description of the method of sequence generation (RR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.78-4.33), participant flow (RR, 8.06; 95% CI, 4.10-15.83), and total CONSORT items (standardised mean difference, 3.67 items; 95% CI, 2.09-5.25) were improved after adoption of CONSORT by the journal. CONCLUSIONS: Journal adoption of CONSORT is associated with improved reporting of RCTs. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. AC Plint D Moher A Morrison K Schulz DG Altman C Hill I Gaboury The Medical journal of Australia, Vol. 185, No. 5. (4 September 2006), pp. 263-267. 2008-05-10T07:29:49-00:00 2006 The Medical journal of Australia 0025-729X 185 5 263 267 all consort evaluation policy publication reporting standards systematic-reviews http://www.citeulike.org/user/hpiwowar/article/2688914 <i>Trials, Vol. 9 (18 April 2008), 20.</i> Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors' Sally Hopewell Douglas Altman David Moher Kenneth Schulz doi:10.1186/1745-6215-9-20 Trials, Vol. 9 (18 April 2008), 20. 2008-04-18T18:08:37-00:00 2008 Trials 1745-6215 9 20 all consort elpub instructions-for-authors publishing standards survey http://www.citeulike.org/user/hpiwowar/article/2204083 <i></i> The CONSORT Group > Database > Impact of and adherence to CONSORT 2008-01-07T15:15:13-00:00 all consort data-sharing evaluation policy publishing reporting http://www.citeulike.org/user/hpiwowar/article/691011 <i>BMJ, Vol. 330, No. 7499. (7 May 2005), pp. 1056-1057.</i> Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors. DG Altman doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7499.1056 BMJ, Vol. 330, No. 7499. (7 May 2005), pp. 1056-1057. 2006-06-09T11:52:22-00:00 2005 BMJ 1468-5833 330 7499 1056 1057 all consort data-sharing evaluation instructions-for-authors policy publishing reporting http://www.citeulike.org/user/hpiwowar/article/2112889 <i>J Clin Epidemiol, Vol. 60, No. 3. (March 2007), pp. 241-249.</i><br /><br />OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guidelines improved clinical trials reporting and subject attrition, which may undermine the credibility of published randomized clinical trials (RCTs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Published RCTs reported in two major medical journals before and after the CONSORT guidelines were systematically reviewed; one used the CONSORT statement (JAMA) and one did not (NEJM). RESULTS: The quality of RCT reporting improved for both journals, but JAMA showed more significant and consistent improvements in all aspects of RCT reporting. Subject attrition was better accounted for after the publication of CONSORT, although the attrition rates for various reasons actually increased. Attrition due to unknown reasons, as a percentage of total attrition, declined dramatically, from 68.7% pre-CONSORT to 13.0% post-CONSORT. CONCLUSIONS: Attrition of study subjects remains a serious problem in RCTs. Bias from selective attrition can undermine the presumptive scientific advantage of RCTs. The CONSORT guidelines improved RCT reporting when they were implemented but did not substantially improve reported attrition rates. Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. RL Kane J Wang J Garrard doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.016 J Clin Epidemiol, Vol. 60, No. 3. (March 2007), pp. 241-249. 2007-12-14T10:27:36-00:00 2007 J Clin Epidemiol 0895-4356 60 3 241 249 all consort data-sharing elpub evaluation policy publishing reporting http://www.citeulike.org/user/hpiwowar/article/2204077 <i>JAMA, Vol. 285, No. 15. (18 April 2001), pp. 1992-1995.</i><br /><br />CONTEXT: The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To date, a paucity of data exists regarding whether it has achieved this goal. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvement in the quality of reports of RCTs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparative before-and-after evaluation in which reports of RCTs published in 1994 (pre-CONSORT) were compared with RCT reports from the same journals published in 1998 (post-CONSORT). We included 211 reports from BMJ, JAMA, and The Lancet (journals that adopted CONSORT) as well as The New England Journal of Medicine (a journal that did not adopt CONSORT and was used as a comparator). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of CONSORT items included in a report, frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment, and overall trial quality score based on the Jadad scale, a 5-point quality assessment instrument. RESULTS: Compared with 1994, the number of CONSORT checklist items in reports of RCTs increased in all 4 journals in 1998, and this increase was statistically significant for the 3 adopter journals (pre-CONSORT, 23.4; mean change, 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-5.3). The frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment decreased for each of the 4 journals, and this change was statistically significant for adopters (pre-CONSORT, 61%; mean change, -22%; 95% CI, -38% to -6%). Similarly, 3 of the 4 journals showed an improvement in the quality score for reports of RCTs, and this increase was statistically significant for adopter journals overall (pre-CONSORT, 2.7; mean change, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8). CONCLUSION: Use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvements in the quality of reports of RCTs. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. D Moher A Jones L Lepage JAMA, Vol. 285, No. 15. (18 April 2001), pp. 1992-1995. 2008-01-07T15:13:47-00:00 2001 JAMA 0098-7484 285 15 1992 1995 all consort data-sharing evaluation policy publishing reporting http://www.citeulike.org/user/hpiwowar/article/2074414 <i>Controlled Clinical Trials, Vol. 23, No. 4. (August 2002), pp. 380-388.</i><br /><br />The "Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials" (CONSORT) was developed to improve the suboptimal reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, little is known about the quality of reporting since this publication. We undertook an observational study to determine the quality of reporting key methodological factors in RCTs since the publication of the CONSORT statement and if a journal policy to promote adherence to the CONSORT checklist was associated with superior reporting. We recorded the reporting of 11 key methodological factors in 105 RCTs from 29 medical journals published subsequent to the CONSORT statement. We examined the quality of reporting in relation to whether a journal was a "CONSORT promoter" as defined by inclusion of the CONSORT checklist in a journal's "information to authors" section or a requirement that authors, manuscript reviewers, or copy editors complete the CONSORT checklist. Multivariate analysis controlled for journal impact factor, study outcome, and time of publication. Six of the 11 methodological factors were reported <50% of the time. The number of methodological factors reported was greater in CONSORT promoters than in journals not promoting CONSORT in both unadjusted (6.0 and 5.1, respectively, p-value = 0.03) and adjusted (6.4 and 4.8 of the 11 methodological factors, respectively, p-value = 0.0001) analyses. While journals that promote CONSORT demonstrate superior reporting of RCTs, persistent inadequacies in reporting remain. Until these inadequacies are resolved health-care providers will remain limited in their ability to make informed inferences about the validity of the studies upon which they base their clinical practice. The reporting of methodological factors in randomized controlled trials and the association with a journal policy to promote adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist PJ Devereaux Braden Manns William Ghali Hude Quan Gordon Guyatt doi:10.1016/S0197-2456(02)00214-3 Controlled Clinical Trials, Vol. 23, No. 4. (August 2002), pp. 380-388. 2007-12-07T19:04:47-00:00 2002 Controlled Clinical Trials 23 4 380 388 all consort data-sharing evaluation publishing http://www.citeulike.org/user/hpiwowar/article/518690 <i>Jama, Vol. 285, No. 15. (2001), pp. 1992-5.</i><br /><br />CONTEXT: The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). To date, a paucity of data exists regarding whether it has achieved this goal. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvement in the quality of reports of RCTs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Comparative before-and-after evaluation in which reports of RCTs published in 1994 (pre-CONSORT) were compared with RCT reports from the same journals published in 1998 (post-CONSORT). We included 211 reports from BMJ, JAMA, and The Lancet (journals that adopted CONSORT) as well as The New England Journal of Medicine (a journal that did not adopt CONSORT and was used as a comparator). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of CONSORT items included in a report, frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment, and overall trial quality score based on the Jadad scale, a 5-point quality assessment instrument. RESULTS: Compared with 1994, the number of CONSORT checklist items in reports of RCTs increased in all 4 journals in 1998, and this increase was statistically significant for the 3 adopter journals (pre-CONSORT, 23.4; mean change, 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-5.3). The frequency of unclear reporting of allocation concealment decreased for each of the 4 journals, and this change was statistically significant for adopters (pre-CONSORT, 61%; mean change, -22%; 95% CI, -38% to -6%). Similarly, 3 of the 4 journals showed an improvement in the quality score for reports of RCTs, and this increase was statistically significant for adopter journals overall (pre-CONSORT, 2.7; mean change, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8). CONCLUSION: Use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvements in the quality of reports of RCTs. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation D Moher A Jones L Lepage Jama, Vol. 285, No. 15. (2001), pp. 1992-5. 2006-02-23T18:37:29-00:00 2001 Jama 285 15 1992 5 all consort evaluation publishing standards http://www.citeulike.org/user/hpiwowar/article/518687 <i>Jama, Vol. 279, No. 18. (1998), pp. 1489-91.</i> CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials D Moher Jama, Vol. 279, No. 18. (1998), pp. 1489-91. 2006-02-23T18:37:29-00:00 1998 Jama 279 18 1489 91 all consort publishing standards http://www.citeulike.org/user/hpiwowar/article/518535 <i>Aten Primaria, Vol. 21, No. 6. (1998), pp. 351-2.</i> [CONSORT: an attempt to improve the quality of publication of clinical trials] M Ausejo A Saenz D Moher Aten Primaria, Vol. 21, No. 6. (1998), pp. 351-2. 2006-02-23T18:37:23-00:00 1998 Aten Primaria 21 6 351 2 all consort publishing standards