Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals
An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journ...
Uložené v:
| Vydané v: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews Ročník 11; s. MR000030 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autori: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Vydavateľské údaje: |
England
14.11.2012
|
| Predmet: | |
| ISSN: | 1469-493X, 1469-493X |
| On-line prístup: | Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe |
| Tagy: |
Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
|
| Abstract | An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.
To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.
We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive.
In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment.
We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score.
Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors. Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)).
Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influence of the CONSORT Statement dependent on the extent of editorial policies to ensure adherence to CONSORT guidance. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.BACKGROUNDAn overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published.To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.OBJECTIVESTo update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals.We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive.SEARCH METHODSWe conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive.In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment.SELECTION CRITERIAIn addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment.We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISWe completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score.Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors. Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)).MAIN RESULTSFifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of s An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published. To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals. We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive. In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment. We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score. Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors. Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant. 'Allocation concealment' resulted in the largest effect, with risk ratio (RR) 1.81 (99% confidence interval (CI) 1.25 to 2.61), suggesting that 81% more RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals adequately describe allocation concealment compared to those published in non-endorsing journals. Allocation concealment was reported adequately in 45% (393/876) of RCTs in CONSORT-endorsing journals and in 22% (329/1520) of RCTs in non-endorsing journals. Other outcomes with results that were significant include: scientific rationale and background in the 'Introduction' (RR 1.07, 99% CI 1.01 to 1.14); 'sample size' (RR 1.61, 99% CI 1.13 to 2.29); method used for 'sequence generation' (RR 1.59, 99% CI 1.38 to 1.84); and an aggregate score over reported CONSORT items, 'total sum score' (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.68 (99% CI 0.38 to 0.98)). Evidence has accumulated to suggest that the reporting of RCTs remains sub-optimal. This review updates a previous systematic review of eight evaluations. The findings of this review are similar to those from the original review and demonstrate that, despite the general inadequacies of reporting of RCTs, journal endorsement of the CONSORT Statement may beneficially influence the completeness of reporting of trials published in medical journals. Future prospective studies are needed to explore the influence of the CONSORT Statement dependent on the extent of editorial policies to ensure adherence to CONSORT guidance. |
| Author | Moher, David Dias, Sofia Weeks, Laura Schulz, Kenneth F Peters, Jodi Turner, Lucy Shamseer, Larissa Altman, Douglas G Plint, Amy C Kober, Thilo |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Lucy surname: Turner fullname: Turner, Lucy email: lturner@ohri.ca organization: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. lturner@ohri.ca – sequence: 2 givenname: Larissa surname: Shamseer fullname: Shamseer, Larissa – sequence: 3 givenname: Douglas G surname: Altman fullname: Altman, Douglas G – sequence: 4 givenname: Laura surname: Weeks fullname: Weeks, Laura – sequence: 5 givenname: Jodi surname: Peters fullname: Peters, Jodi – sequence: 6 givenname: Thilo surname: Kober fullname: Kober, Thilo – sequence: 7 givenname: Sofia surname: Dias fullname: Dias, Sofia – sequence: 8 givenname: Kenneth F surname: Schulz fullname: Schulz, Kenneth F – sequence: 9 givenname: Amy C surname: Plint fullname: Plint, Amy C – sequence: 10 givenname: David surname: Moher fullname: Moher, David |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23152285$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpdkMlOwzAQhi1URBd4hcrH9pASL3GSI4rYpEKlUiRuUZw41JVjB9s58Cy8LEa0EmIus33z69dMwUgbLQCYo3iF4hhfI8oSlCXZ6mkbhyDxqh84PgOTsMgjmpO30Z96DKbOHQKWI5RdgDEmKME4SybgqzDaGSWbyosGOl_pprKNg6aFVvTGeqnfobeyUg4uis3zy2a7W8JAQb8XsDZdr4QXWrh_Jz9NoEwnXdCtjfbWKBXKk9a22LklDKaVdPswlxp2opF1peDBDFYH6BKctyGJq2Oegde7213xEK0394_FzTqqaUpwxChqOKJJmyQ5a3DKeUZSQhjhWZo3NOVMcMbiCrUcYSbiFiWU0jYTORcI1y2egcWvbm_NxyCcL4PrWihVaWEGVyKUooyRPE0DOj-iAw92y97KrrKf5emh-BsfO32P |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_018_2503_0 crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_MR000035_pub2 crossref_primary_10_1159_000495294 crossref_primary_10_1002_mpr_1939 crossref_primary_10_1093_icvts_ivv154 crossref_primary_10_3390_women5020017 crossref_primary_10_3389_fvets_2023_1137774 crossref_primary_10_1002_uog_18833 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12905_023_02463_4 crossref_primary_10_3389_fcvm_2020_592834 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_023_01922_8 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_18453_2 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_18453_1 crossref_primary_10_1093_mmy_myw133 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2017_020064 crossref_primary_10_2341_17_060_L crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_054777 crossref_primary_10_2196_21700 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_050056 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_020_01076_x crossref_primary_10_3389_fneur_2019_00991 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_017_0514_7 crossref_primary_10_1080_17437199_2015_1077155 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_018_2510_1 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2019_032844 crossref_primary_10_1159_000517679 crossref_primary_10_1111_jocn_16132 crossref_primary_10_3389_fgene_2019_00958 crossref_primary_10_1111_epi_18047 crossref_primary_10_1177_0008417416648124 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0022215116009269 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12630_013_9895_9 crossref_primary_10_1002_ejhf_3289 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2013_003556 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_020_04462_4 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pmed_1001910 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2013_003436 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2023_17665 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11096_023_01612_x crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2025_29418 crossref_primary_10_2196_22500 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12966_018_0741_x crossref_primary_10_2196_63723 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejim_2016_10_008 crossref_primary_10_1111_jcpe_12572 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2023_1236402 crossref_primary_10_5812_jjcdc_84757 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eururo_2016_08_001 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41386_024_01973_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_zefq_2014_09_022 crossref_primary_10_1155_2022_3288948 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_023_17014_7 crossref_primary_10_1111_eve_13897 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12891_024_08241_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s10143_025_03516_y crossref_primary_10_1016_j_math_2014_07_011 crossref_primary_10_1111_hir_12464 crossref_primary_10_1159_000540641 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pmed_1001885 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ctim_2014_01_003 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11229_022_03765_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijnurstu_2015_10_017 crossref_primary_10_1111_vru_13396 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2019_036148 crossref_primary_10_3389_fphar_2022_1106957 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12916_016_0587_5 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2017_016117 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_015_0235_z crossref_primary_10_1080_02687038_2016_1178022 crossref_primary_10_1136_bjsports_2013_092296 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12888_019_2411_1 crossref_primary_10_3389_fneur_2024_1453183 crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD006531_pub2 crossref_primary_10_1080_26408066_2020_1724226 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2017_020580 crossref_primary_10_36377_1726_7242_2022_20_2_136_143 crossref_primary_10_1155_2022_3178154 crossref_primary_10_1155_2013_972471 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_017_1859_x crossref_primary_10_25100_cm_v44i4_1475 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyg_2025_1576381 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2016_012140 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_30748 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_024_72130_7 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10916_022_01856_6 crossref_primary_10_2196_37255 crossref_primary_10_5812_ircmj_60508 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_2024_081124 crossref_primary_10_1111_wrr_12087 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00784_025_06168_w crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2018_021753 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12888_023_04753_5 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2018_022603 crossref_primary_10_1111_irv_13283 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2017_016455 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13054_024_05175_9 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph18168649 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rce_2015_05_004 crossref_primary_10_1159_000360546 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2020_040183 crossref_primary_10_1080_15323269_2018_1509196 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2018_028382 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2019_030981 crossref_primary_10_1159_000497423 crossref_primary_10_2196_34273 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11292_013_9180_5 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_068173 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00784_021_04198_8 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2024_41372 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_n857 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13063_020_4195_5 crossref_primary_10_1093_ejo_cjaf026 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2015_008007 crossref_primary_10_3389_fimmu_2024_1429895 crossref_primary_10_5312_wjo_v8_i1_1 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rceng_2015_08_004 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00134_013_2947_3 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12630_013_9973_z crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjqs_2022_014727 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2017_017551 crossref_primary_10_1002_acr_23265 crossref_primary_10_1111_ajo_12233 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12603_016_0825_8 crossref_primary_10_1159_000542108 crossref_primary_10_1177_0741932516652893 crossref_primary_10_1080_00031305_2022_2143897 crossref_primary_10_1111_inm_13390 crossref_primary_10_7326_M14_2385 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40279_025_02187_5 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0155078 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_049093 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_025_02901_4 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00784_025_06189_5 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_022_02048_6 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40883_019_00141_2 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jelekin_2025_102994 crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD012654_pub2 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00520_024_08415_4 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00103_014_2065_6 crossref_primary_10_1080_17483107_2024_2442710 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2019_032024 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ctrv_2018_06_008 crossref_primary_10_1111_pme_12404 crossref_primary_10_7759_cureus_34353 crossref_primary_10_1111_jnu_12943 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rbmo_2014_10_013 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12875_021_01473_1 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11192_022_04542_z crossref_primary_10_1080_08989621_2021_1989676 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0087987 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00784_023_05241_6 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_017_0643_z crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2023_36023 crossref_primary_10_1002_ejhf_3229 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjebm_2019_111309 crossref_primary_10_1515_hmbci_2018_0020 crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD011006_pub4 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.MR000030.pub2 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1469-493X |
| ExternalDocumentID | 23152285 |
| Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review Journal Article |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: Medical Research Council grantid: MR/J004871/1 |
| GroupedDBID | --- 53G 5GY 7PX 9HA ABJNI ACGFO ACGFS AENEX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AYR CGR CUY CVF D7G ECM EIF HYE NPM OEC OK1 P2P RWY WOW ZYTZH 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4732-641db145f5596d27bb8373363b879d47b6eb660a1fb126e0f15444f8e9be12cf2 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 620 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000312198800020&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1469-493X |
| IngestDate | Fri Jul 11 08:43:52 EDT 2025 Sat Jun 28 01:33:50 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4732-641db145f5596d27bb8373363b879d47b6eb660a1fb126e0f15444f8e9be12cf2 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-4 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7386818 |
| PMID | 23152285 |
| PQID | 1171863977 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1171863977 pubmed_primary_23152285 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2012-11-14 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2012-11-14 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 11 year: 2012 text: 2012-11-14 day: 14 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | Cochrane database of systematic reviews |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Cochrane Database Syst Rev |
| PublicationYear | 2012 |
| SSID | ssj0039118 |
| Score | 2.5981069 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | MR000030 |
| SubjectTerms | Checklist - standards Periodicals as Topic - standards Publishing - standards Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - standards Reference Standards |
| Title | Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23152285 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1171863977 |
| Volume | 11 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000312198800020&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1bS-QwFA66s4gv7sXrritZ2If1oc7knj7JMjj44IzijjBvQ3ODAW1Hq_4Z_6wnberigyDsS2khCU16evLlfCf5EPrllWWFcCIL1oiMcyWzQlOWERdswYJmxDdH5p-pyUTPZvlFCrjVKa2y84mNo3aVjTHyPiHgRSMLpY6Xt1lUjYrsapLQWEU9BlAmpnSp2QuLwOBH1u3uoqikxmbdDuEB7ZOoAa6FPho3imtsELtP34aZzXQz-vS_L_oZbSSgif-0lvEFrfjyK1obJyp9Ez1Fqc7qehFX_A53EYUaVwG3PALMabjR9Kjx7-H55O_55fQQQykMkBE3megRb4OjfF0lPkCpCuwH2k2Z8Ndw27V1OZzWh3iZ0vEdXpT4pmWLcDLsegtdjU6mw9MsKTVklitGM8mJM4SLAOsT6agyBta9jElmtModV0Z6I-WgIMEQKv0gxDOAeNA-N55QG-g2-lBWpd9FuCC2UIURNs8ND8Rpp4UMThMVADkJuod-dsM-h55EeqMoffVQz_8N_B7aab_dfNke2TEHFAtAU4tv76j9Ha0DKqJxwyHh-6gXoN_-B_poH-8X9d1BY2JwnVyMnwEELN08 |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Consolidated+standards+of+reporting+trials+%28CONSORT%29+and+the+completeness+of+reporting+of+randomised+controlled+trials+%28RCTs%29+published+in+medical+journals&rft.jtitle=Cochrane+database+of+systematic+reviews&rft.au=Turner%2C+Lucy&rft.au=Shamseer%2C+Larissa&rft.au=Altman%2C+Douglas+G&rft.au=Weeks%2C+Laura&rft.date=2012-11-14&rft.issn=1469-493X&rft.eissn=1469-493X&rft.volume=11&rft.spage=MR000030&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2F14651858.MR000030.pub2&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1469-493X&client=summon |