CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Schulz KF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2844794 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
Schulz Kenneth F KF Altman Douglas G DG Moher David D
PLoS medicine 20100324 3
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC2844943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement, updated in March 2010, includes a 25-item checklist and flow diagram. Adherence to this statement is a minimum requirement for the complete, clear, and transparent reporting of randomized trials. We translated the CONSORT 2010 Statement into Korean to promote the widespread adherence to CONSORT in South Korea and to facilitate the adoption of complete, clear, and transparent reporting. The Korean version of the CONSORT is available at http://www.e-epih.org/.
| S-EPMC4371386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceTransparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal.ObjectiveTo develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials.DesignUsing the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist.FindingsThis CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported.Conclusions and relevanceThis extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.
| S-EPMC7617336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a guideline designed to improve the transparency and quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this article we present an extension to that statement for randomised pilot and feasibility trials conducted in advance of a future definitive RCT. The checklist applies to any randomised study in which a future definitive RCT, or part of it, is conducted on a smaller scale, regardless of its design (eg, cluster, factorial, crossover) or the terms used by authors to describe the study (eg, pilot, feasibility, trial, study). The extension does not directly apply to internal pilot studies built into the design of a main trial, non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies, or phase II studies, but these studies all have some similarities to randomised pilot and feasibility studies and so many of the principles might also apply. The development of the extension was motivated by the growing number of studies described as feasibility or pilot studies and by research that has identified weaknesses in their reporting and conduct. We followed recommended good practice to develop the extension, including carrying out a Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting and research team meetings, and piloting the checklist. The aims and objectives of pilot and feasibility randomised studies differ from those of other randomised trials. Consequently, although much of the information to be reported in these trials is similar to those in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effectiveness and efficacy, there are some key differences in the type of information and in the appropriate interpretation of standard CONSORT reporting items. We have retained some of the original CONSORT statement items, but most have been adapted, some removed, and new items added. The new items cover how participants were identified and consent obtained; if applicable, the prespecified criteria used to judge whether or how to proceed with a future definitive RCT; if relevant, other important unintended consequences; implications for progression from pilot to future definitive RCT, including any proposed amendments; and ethical approval or approval by a research review committee confirmed with a reference number. This article includes the 26 item checklist, a separate checklist for the abstract, a template for a CONSORT flowchart for these studies, and an explanation of the changes made and supporting examples. We believe that routine use of this proposed extension to the CONSORT statement will result in improvements in the reporting of pilot trials. Editor's note: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal websites.
| S-EPMC5154046 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5076380 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6225589 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt can be argued that adaptive designs are underused in clinical research. We have explored concerns related to inadequate reporting of such trials, which may influence their uptake. Through a careful examination of the literature, we evaluated the standards of reporting of group sequential (GS) randomised controlled trials, one form of a confirmatory adaptive design.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review, by searching Ovid MEDLINE from the 1st January 2001 to 23rd September 2014, supplemented with trials from an audit study. We included parallel group, confirmatory, GS trials that were prospectively designed using a Frequentist approach. Eligible trials were examined for compliance in their reporting against the CONSORT 2010 checklist. In addition, as part of our evaluation, we developed a supplementary checklist to explicitly capture group sequential specific reporting aspects, and investigated how these are currently being reported.ResultsOf the 284 screened trials, 68(24%) were eligible. Most trials were published in "high impact" peer-reviewed journals. Examination of trials established that 46(68%) were stopped early, predominantly either for futility or efficacy. Suboptimal reporting compliance was found in general items relating to: access to full trials protocols; methods to generate randomisation list(s); details of randomisation concealment, and its implementation. Benchmarking against the supplementary checklist, GS aspects were largely inadequately reported. Only 3(7%) trials which stopped early reported use of statistical bias correction. Moreover, 52(76%) trials failed to disclose methods used to minimise the risk of operational bias, due to the knowledge or leakage of interim results. Occurrence of changes to trial methods and outcomes could not be determined in most trials, due to inaccessible protocols and amendments.Discussion and conclusionsThere are issues with the reporting of GS trials, particularly those specific to the conduct of interim analyses. Suboptimal reporting of bias correction methods could potentially imply most GS trials stopping early are giving biased results of treatment effects. As a result, research consumers may question credibility of findings to change practice when trials are stopped early. These issues could be alleviated through a CONSORT extension. Assurance of scientific rigour through transparent adequate reporting is paramount to the credibility of findings from adaptive trials. Our systematic literature search was restricted to one database due to resource constraints.
| S-EPMC4631356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the methods for improving the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on acupuncture through evaluating the reporting quality in RCTs of acupuncture for acute herpes zoster by the CONSORT statement and STRICTA guidelines.MethodsEnglish and Chinese databases were searched from database creation until October 2018 and updated to July 2019. The basic characteristics and methodological quality of the literatures included were evaluated based on the CONSORT statement and the STRICTA guidelines. Descriptive statistical analysis was used in this study. The agreement between the two researchers of all items was calculated by Cohen's kappa statistics.ResultsA total of 40 RCTs were included. Based on the CONSORT statement, items "Background," "Randomised" in the title or abstract," "Statistical methods," and "Outcomes and estimation" were good reporting, with positive rates >80%. However, the quality of reporting in items "Sample size," "Allocation concealment," "Implementation," "Blinding," "Flow chart," "Intent-to-treat analysis," "Ancillary analyses," and "Clinical Trials Register" was very poor, with positive rates <10%. Based on the STRICTA guidelines, good reporting existed in items "Acupuncture rational," "Points used," "Needle stimulation," "Needle retention time," "Course of treatment," "Control intervention," and "Treatment frequency," with positive ratings >80%. The reporting quality of items "Numbers of needles inserted," "Depth of insertion," "Responses elicited," and "Practitioner background" was lower, with positive rates <50%. The agreement of most items was judged as moderate, substantial, or good.ConclusionThe reporting quality of RCTs in acupuncture for acute HZ is generally inadequate. It is necessary that researchers and journal editors learn and raise the adoption of the CONSORT statement and STRICTA guidelines to enhance the reporting quality of the RCTs in acupuncture.
| S-EPMC7049440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to assess the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture in the Korean literature.DesignSystematic review.MethodsWe searched 12 Korean databases and 7 Korean journals to identify eligible RCTs of acupuncture published from 1996 to July 2011. We used the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist for parallel RCTs and the revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) to assess the quality of reporting in Korean RCTs. We compared the completeness of reporting of CONSORT and STRICTA items in RCTs published in two time periods (1996-2004 referred to as the early period and 2005-2011 referred to as the late period).ResultsWe analysed 146 eligible RCTs using the CONSORT statement concerning RCTs of both needling and non-needling acupuncture and the STRICTA guidelines for 90 trials of needling acupuncture. Among the 103 RCTs in the late period, the proportion of RCTs that completely reported the CONSORT items of outcome definition (15.5%), sample size calculation (2.9%), randomisation (56%), allocation concealment (5.8%), implementation of allocation (11.7%), outcome assessor blinding (20.3%), flow of participants (25.2%), number of participants analysed (19.4%), ancillary analyses (0.0%), adverse events (24.3%), generalisability of findings (1.9%) and overall evidence (32.0%) remained small. Among the 61 RCTs of needling acupuncture in the late period, the STRICTA items of setting/context (24.6%) and practitioner background (27.9%) showed incomplete reporting. The completeness of reporting improved over time in several CONSORT and STRICTA items.ConclusionsThe completeness of reporting of Korean RCTs of acupuncture was suboptimal according to the CONSORT and revised STRICTA statements. Trial authors and journal editors should use the CONSORT statement and STRICTA guidelines for transparent reporting in Korean RCTs of acupuncture. The endorsement of the CONSORT and revised STRICTA statements in author instructions is also required.
| S-EPMC4120411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for Artificial Intelligence interventions (CONSORT-AI) was published in September 2020. Since its publication, several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AI interventions have been published but their completeness and transparency of reporting is unknown. This systematic review assesses the completeness of reporting of AI RCTs following publication of CONSORT-AI and provides a comprehensive summary of RCTs published in recent years. 65 RCTs were identified, mostly conducted in China (37%) and USA (18%). Median concordance with CONSORT-AI reporting was 90% (IQR 77-94%), although only 10 RCTs explicitly reported its use. Several items were consistently under-reported, including algorithm version, accessibility of the AI intervention or code, and references to a study protocol. Only 3 of 52 included journals explicitly endorsed or mandated CONSORT-AI. Despite a generally high concordance amongst recent AI RCTs, some AI-specific considerations remain systematically poorly reported. Further encouragement of CONSORT-AI adoption by journals and funders may enable more complete adoption of the full CONSORT-AI guidelines.
| S-EPMC10883966 | biostudies-literature