Adherence of trials of operative intervention to the CONSORT statement extension for nonpharmacological treatments: A comparative before and after study

Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England

Volumn 94, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 388-394

  Gray, R ^a   Sullivan, M ^a   Altman, D G ^b   Gordon Weeks, Alex N ^c  

^a OXFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Consort; Publishing standards; Randomised controlled trial; Research design

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSENSUS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STANDARD;

CHECKLIST; CONSENSUS; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84867194502     PISSN: 00358843     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1308/003588412X13171221592339     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Abel U, Koch A. The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 487-497.
2. 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.
3. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: a comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001; 285: 1,992-1,995.
4. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001; 357: 1,191-1,194.
5. 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.
6. Haidich AB, Birtsou C, Dardavessis T et al. The quality of safety reporting in trials is still suboptimal: survey of major general medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 124-135.
7. Mills EJ, Wu P, Gagnier J, Devereaux PJ. The quality of randomized trial reporting in leading medical journals since the revised CONSORT statement. Contemp Clin Trials 2005; 26: 480-487.
8. Agha R, Cooper D, Muir G. The reporting quality of randomised controlled trials in surgery: a systematic review. Int J Surg 2007; 5: 413-422.
9. Balasubramanian SP, Wiener M, Alshameeri Z et al. Standards of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general surgery: can we do better? Ann Surg 2006; 244: 663-667.
10. Sinha S, Sinha S, Ashby E et al. Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 209: 565-571.e1.
11. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M et al. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 2002; 324: 1,448-1,451.
12. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG et al. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 295-309.
13. Gravel J, Opatrny L, Shapiro S. The intention-to-treat approach in randomized controlled trials: are authors saying what they do and doing what they say? Clin Trials 2007; 4: 350-356.
14. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c332.
15. Naunheim MR, Walcott BP, Nahed BV et al. The quality of randomized controlled trial reporting in spine literature. Spine 2011; 36: 1,326-1,330.
16. Tiruvoipati R, Balasubramanian SP, Atturu G et al. Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery: the way forward. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 132: 233-240.