| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
for the CONSORT Group*
* For a list of contributors to the CONSORT statement, see Appendix. The revised CONSORT statement is also published in JAMA (April 18, 2001), The Lancet (April 14, 2001), and the Annals of Internal Medicine (April 17, 2001).
Abstract
To comprehend the results of a randomized, controlled trial (RCT), readers must understand its design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors. Despite several decades of educational efforts, the reporting of RCTs needs improvement. Investigators and editors developed the original CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to help authors improve reporting by using a checklist and flow diagram. The revised CONSORT statement presented in this paper incorporates new evidence and addresses some criticisms of the original statement.
The checklist items pertain to the content of the Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. The revised checklist includes 22 items selected because empirical evidence indicates that not reporting the information is associated with biased estimates of treatment effect or because the information is essential to judge the reliability or relevance of the findings. We intended the flow diagram to depict the passage of participants through an RCT. The revised flow diagram depicts information from four stages of trial (enrollment, intervention allocation, follow-up, and analysis). The diagram explicitly includes the number of participants, for each intervention group, that are included in the primary data analysis. Inclusion of these numbers allows the reader to judge whether the authors have performed an intention-to-treat analysis.
In sum, the CONSORT statement is intended to improve the reporting of an RCT, enabling readers to understand a trial’s conduct and to assess the validity of its results. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 91(8): 437-442, 2001)
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  R. Ouwendijk, M. de Vries, T. Stijnen, P. M. T. Pattynama, M. R. H. M. van Sambeek, J. Buth, A. V. Tielbeek, D. A. van der Vliet, L. J. SchutzeKool, P. J. E. H. M. Kitslaar, et al. Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of the Costs and Effects of Noninvasive Diagnostic Imaging in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease: The DIPAD Trial Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1349 - 1357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. J Sullivan, D. A Brown, S. Mulroy, and C. J Winstein Author Response Physical Therapy, December 1, 2007; 87(12): 1605 - 1607. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Ouwendijk, M. de Vries, P. M. T. Pattynama, M. R. H. M. van Sambeek, M. W. de Haan, T. Stijnen, J. M. A. van Engelshoven, and M. G. M. Hunink Imaging Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography and Multi-Detector Row CT Angiography Radiology, September 1, 2005; 236(3): 1094 - 1103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M Stiggelbout, D Y Popkema, M Hopman-Rock, M de Greef, and W van Mechelen Once a week is not enough: effects of a widely implemented group based exercise programme for older adults; a randomised controlled trial J Epidemiol Community Health, February 1, 2004; 58(2): 83 - 88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. M Eldridge, D. Ashby, G. S Feder, A. R Rudnicka, and O. C Ukoumunne Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty-first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care Clinical Trials, February 1, 2004; 1(1): 80 - 90. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. A. Turlik, D. Kushner, and D. Stock Assessing the Validity of Published Randomized Controlled Trials in Podiatric Medical Journals J Am Podiatr Med Assoc, September 1, 2003; 93(5): 392 - 398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
