No excuse for poor reporting of surgical RCTs

Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 305-306

  Edison, Eric ^a   Agha, Riaz ^a   Camm, Christian Fielder ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84555188113     PISSN: 14653125     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1179/14653121141605     Document Type: Letter

References (7)

1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c869.
2. Flint HE, Harrison JE. How well do reports of clinical trials in the orthodontic literature comply with the CONSORT statement? J Orthod 2010; 37: 250-61.
3. Agha R, Cooper D, Muir G. The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Int J Surg 2007; 5: 413-22. (Pubitemid 350213578)
4. Naunheim MR, Walcott BP, Nahed BV, Simpson AK, Agarwalla PK, Coumans JV. The quality of randomized controlled trial reporting in spine literature. Spine 2011; 36: 1326-30.
5. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006; 185: 263-7. (Pubitemid 44382877)
6. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz K, Ravaud P; and for the CONSORT Group. Extending the CONSORT Statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008; 184: 295-309. (Pubitemid 351665487)
7. Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA 2002; 287: 2801-04. (Pubitemid 34591968)