CONSORT: An evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials

JAMA

Volumn 279, Issue 18, 1998, Pages 1489-1491

  Moher, David ^a  

^a CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; STANDARD;

EID: 0032513744     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.279.18.1489     Document Type: Review

References (24)

1. Mosteller F, Gilbert JP, McPeek B. Reporting standards and research strategies for controlled trials: agenda for the editor. Control Clin Trials. 1980;1:37-58.
2. Zelen M. Guidelines for publishing papers on cancer clinical trials: responsibilities of editors and authors. J Clin Oncol. 1983;1:164-169.
3. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:426-432.
4. Altman DG, Doré CJ. Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet. 1990;335:149-153.
5. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA, Altman DG. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA. 1994;272:125-128.
6. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research: getting better but still not good. JAMA. 1995;274:645-651.
7. Sonis J, Joines J. The quality of clinical trials published in the Journal of Family Practice, 1974-1991. J Fam Pract. 1994;39:225-235.
8. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Clinical studies in surgical journals - have we improved? Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36:43-48.
9. Moher D, Jadad AR, Tugwell P. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: current issues and future directions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996;12:195-248.
10. The Standards of Reporting Trials Group. A proposal for structured reporting of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 1994;272:1926-1931.
11. The Asilomar Working Group on Recommendations for Reporting of Clinical Trials in the Biomedical Literature. Checklist of information for inclusion in reports of clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:741-743.
12. Begg CB, Cho MK, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:637-639.
13. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-412.
14. Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, Boon H, Illersich AL, Einarson TR. Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Journal of the American Medical Association. Can Med Assoc J. 1994;150:1611-1615.
15. Khan KS, Daya S, Collins JA, Walter S. Empirical evidence of bias in infertility research: overestimation of treatment effect in crossover trials using pregnancy as the outcome measure. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:939-945.
16. Rennie D. How to report randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276:649.
17. Freemantle N, Mason JM, Haines A, Eccles MP. CONSORT: an important step toward evidence-based health care. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:81-83.
18. Altman DG, Moher D, Rennie D. CONSORT statement on the reporting standards of clinical trials. BMJ. 1997;314:1127-1127.
19. Randomised trial of intravenous atenolol among 16 027 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-1: First International Study of Infarct Survival Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1986;2:57-66.
20. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:597-599.
21. Kleijnen J, Gøtzsche P, Kunz RA, Oxman AD, Chalmers I. So what's so special about randomization? In: Maynard A, Chalmers I (eds). Non-random Reflections on Health Services Research. London, England: BMJ Publishing Group; 1997:93-106.
22. Lomus J. Words without action? the production, dissemination, and impact of consensus recommendations. Annu Rev Public Health. 1991;12:41-65.
23. Clarke M, Chalmers I. The Quality of Discussion Sections in Reports of Controlled Trials Published by Five Leading General Medical Journals. Presented at: Third International Congress on Biomedical Peer Review and Global Communications; September 17-21, 1997; Prague, Czech Republic.
24. O'Toole LB. MRC uses checklist similar to CONSORTs. BMJ. 1997;314: 1127.