Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 185, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 263-267

  Plint, Amy C ^a   Moher, David ^a,b   Morrison, Andra ^c   Schulz, Kenneth ^d   Altman, Douglas G ^e   Hill, Catherine ^f   Gaboury, Isabelle ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^b CHILDREN S HOSPITAL OF EASTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^c Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment   (Canada)

^d FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^f QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHECKLIST; CLINICAL STUDY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; DATA ANALYSIS; EMBASE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDICAL EXPERT; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; REFERENCE DATABASE; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

EID: 33748671821     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00557.x     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: the CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276: 637-639.
2. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D for the CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001; 285: 1987-1991.
3. Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention-to-treat analysis? Survey of published randomized controlled trials. BMJ 1999; 319: 670-674.
4. Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA, de Irala-Estevez J. Intention to treat analysis is related to methodological quality [letter]. BMJ 2000; 320: 1007-1008.
5. 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.
6. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does the quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 1998; 352: 609-613.
7. Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, et al. 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. Control Clin Trials 2002; 23: 380-388.
8. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L for the CONSORT Group. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001; 285: 1992-1995.
9. Piggot M, McGee H, Feuer D. Has CONSORT improved the reporting of randomized controlled trials in the palliative care literature? A systematic review. Palliat Med 2004; 18: 32-38.
10. Bhandari M, Guyaa G, Lochner H, et al. Application of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) in the fracture care literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84: 485-489.
11. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 1-12.
12. Campbell DC, Stanley JT Experimental and quasi-experimental design for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1966.
13. Hewitt C, Hahn S, Torgerson DJ, et al. Adequacy and reporting of allocation concealment: a review of recent trials published in four general medical journals. BMJ 2005; 330: 1057-1058.
14. Halpern SH, Darani R, Douglas MJ, et al. Compliance with the CONSORT checklist in obstetric anaesthesia randomised controlled trials. Int J Obstet Anesth 2004; 13: 207-214.
15. Faunce TA, Buckley NA. Of consents and CONSORTS: reporting ethics, law, and human rights in RCTs involving monitored overdose of healthy volunteers pre and post the "CONSORT" guidelines. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 2003; 41: 93-99.
16. Montori VM, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, et al. In the dark: the reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 787-790.
17. Hill CL, LaValley MP, Felson DT Secular changes in the quality of published randomized clinical trials in rheumatology. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46: 779-784,
18. Sanchez-Thorin JC, Cortes MC, Montenegro M, Villate N. The quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials published in Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 2001; 108: 410-415.
19. Latronico N, Botteri M, Minelli C, et al. Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in the intensive care literature: a systematic analysis of papers published in Intensive Care Medicine over 26 years. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28: 1316-1323.
20. Doig GS, Simpson F, Delaney A. A review of the true methodological quality of nutritional support trials conducted in the critically ill: time for improvement. Anesth Anaig 2005; 100: 527-533.
21. Torgerson CJ, Torgerson DJ, Birks YF, Porthouse J. A comparison of randomised trials in health and education. Br Educ Res J 2005; 31: 761-785.
22. Stinson JN, McGrath PJ, Yamada JT. Clinical trials in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology: applying the CONSORT statement. J Pediatr Psychol 2003; 28: 159-167.
23. Scherer RW, Crawley B. Reporting of randomized clinical trial descriptors and use of structured abstracts. JAMA 1998; 280: 269-272. Correction in JAMA 1998; 280:1054.
24. Altman DG. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: a survey of instructions for authors. BMJ 2005; 330: 1056-1057.
25. Mills E, Wu P, Gagnier J, et al. An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently, J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 662-667.
26. Mills EJ, Wu P, Gagnier J, et al. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials 2005; 26:480-487.
27. Devereaux PJ, Manns BJ, Ghali WA, et al. Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2001; 285: 2000-2003.