The reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials of hypertension using the CONSORT criteria for harm reporting

Clinical and Experimental Hypertension

Volumn 34, Issue 8, 2012, Pages 548-554

  Bagul, Nitin Babulal ^a   Kirkham, Jamie J ^b  

^a NOVARTIS HORSHAM RESEARCH CENTRE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adverse event; CONSORT; CONSORT extension; Drug safety; Harm

Indexed keywords

ADVERSE OUTCOME; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FUNDING; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STANDARD;

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; WRITING;

EID: 84870451126     PISSN: 10641963     EISSN: 15256006     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/10641963.2012.681724     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Mt-Isa S, Tzoulaki I, Callreus T, Micaleff A, Ashby D. Weighing benefit-risk of medicines: concepts and approaches. Drug Discov Today Technol 2011; 8(1):e29-e35.
2. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized 390 trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141(10):781-788.
3. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?". Lancet 2005; 365 (9453):82-93.
4. Vandenbroucke JP. Benefits and harms of drug treatments. Br Med J 2004; 329(7456):2-3.
5. MoherD.CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. J Am Med Assoc 1998; 279:1489-1491.
6. Pitrou I, Boutron I, Ahmad N, et al. Reporting of safety results in published reports of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169(19):1756-1761.
7. Williams B. Drug treatment of hypertension. Br Med J 2003; 326:61-62.
8. Shukralla AA, Tudur-Smith C, Powell GA, et al. Reporting of adverse events in randomised controlled trials of antiepileptic drugs using the CONSORT criteria for reporting harms. Epilepsy Res 2011; 97:20-29.
9. Bibawy H, Cossu A, Cogan S, et al. Reporting of harms and adverse events in otolaryngology journals. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009; 140(2): 241-244.
10. Breau RH, Gaboury I, Scales CD Jr, et al. Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials published in the urological literature. J Urol 2010; 183(5): 1693-1697.
11. Chowers MY, Gottesman BS, Leibovici L, et al. Reporting of adverse events in randomized controlled trials of highly active antiretroviral therapy: systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009; 64(2):239-250.
12. Ethgen M, Boutron I, Steg PG, et al. Reporting of harm in randomized controlled trials evaluating stents for percutaneous coronary intervention. Trials 2009; 10:29. Available from http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/10/1/29 (Accessed 19 March 2011).
13. Ethgen M, Boutron I, Baron G, et al. Reporting of harm in randomized, controlled trials of non pharmacological treatment for rheumatic disease. Ann Intern Med 2005; 143(1):20-25.
14. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. J Am Med Assoc 1996; 276(8):637-639.
15. Han C, Kwak KP, Marks D, et al. The impact of the CONSORT statements on reporting of randomised clinical trials in psychiatry. Contemp Clin Trials 2009; 30:116-122.
16. 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(5):263-267.
17. Loke YK, Derry S. Reporting of adverse drug reactions in randomised controlled trials - a systematic survey. BMC Clin Pharmacol 2001; 1:3.
18. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. Br Med J 2010; 340:c365.
19. EQUATOR Group. EQUATOR Network, 2012. Available from http://www.equator- network.org/ (Accessed 18 April 2012).